- 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 insufficient. 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