Timothy Dean Strong - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          “mistake or inadvertent omission”.  Petitioners, in their motion            
          in each docket, assert that there was a mistake or inadvertence.            
          While respondent does not agree with petitioners’ assertion,                
          respondent assumes in the alternative that the failure to list a            
          cash accumulation in the bankruptcy proceeding was due to mistake           
          or inadvertence and suggests that the defense is legally                    
               We decline petitioners’ invitation to decide whether mistake           
          or inadvertence is a defense to respondent’s claim of judicial              
          estoppel.  There appear to be genuine issues of material fact               
          relating to omission of a cash accumulation in the bankruptcy               
          matter, and concerning whether there was acceptance by the                  
          bankruptcy court of a position of Strong inconsistent with his              
          position here.  The application of judicial estoppel is not ripe            
          for decision while the factual premises are uncertain.                      

                                             An appropriate order will be             
                                        issued denying petitioners’ motions           
                                        for partial summary judgment.                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  

Last modified: May 25, 2011