Ferguson v. Building Materials

Decision Date03 July 2009
Docket NumberNo. 08-0589.,08-0589.
Citation295 S.W.3d 642
PartiesJason FERGUSON and Bobbie Ferguson, Petitioners, v. BUILDING MATERIALS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, CPC Logistics, Inc., and Robert James Maddox, Respondents.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

St. Clair Newbern, Law Office of St. Clair Newbern, Fort Worth, TX, for Amicus Curiae.

PER CURIAM.

At issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs in a personal injury suit should be estopped from pursuing their claim because they initially omitted it as a listed asset in a pending bankruptcy. The court of appeals, in a divided opinion, concluded that the doctrine of judicial estoppel should apply and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' personal injury claim. 276 S.W.3d 45. The court of appeals reasoned that the doctrine applied because of the plaintiffs failure to add the personal injury claim as an asset in their bankruptcy proceeding before the personal-injury defendant pointed out the omission and moved for dismissal. Because we disagree that the doctrine is invoked under the circumstances of this case, we reverse and remand the personal injury claim to the trial court.

Jason Ferguson and his wife sued Building Materials Corporations of America and others for injuries Ferguson suffered when an eighteen-wheeler crashed into a building, which collapsed on him. A few months after filing the personal injury suit against Building Materials, the Fergusons filed for bankruptcy, which required them to disclose their income, assets, and liabilities to the bankruptcy court, the bankruptcy trustee, and their creditors. See 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(1)(A) & (B)(i),(ii),(iii). To comply with these disclosures, the Fergusons completed several forms, including a Statement of Financial Affairs and a Schedule of Personal Property. The Fergusons disclosed the pending lawsuit in the Statement of Financial Affairs, providing the caption and style of the suit, nature of the claim, cause number, and the court in which it had been filed. The Fergusons, however, failed to include it on their Schedule of Personal Property.

The Fergusons also participated in a creditors meeting at which they again disclosed the pending personal injury suit to the bankruptcy trustee. See 11 U.S.C. § 341(c). The trustee acknowledged the existence of the pending litigation in his report, which was given to the bankruptcy court and creditors. None of the creditors objected to the final bankruptcy plan that failed to include the lawsuit as an asset.

Within weeks of the plan's approval, Building Materials, the defendant in the personal injury lawsuit, filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming the personal injury action was barred on the basis of judicial estoppel. The trial court granted the motion, and a divided court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that the Fergusons were judicially estopped from pursuing the personal injury lawsuit. 276 S.W.3d at 49-52.

Judicial estoppel precludes a party who successfully maintains a position in one...

To continue reading

Request your trial
168 cases
  • DeWolf v. Kohler
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 18, 2014
    ...Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 582 (Tex.2006). We review the trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Ferguson v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 295 S.W.3d 642, 644 (Tex.2009) (per curiam) (citing Tex. Mun. Power Agency v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Tex., 253 S.W.3d 184, 192 (Tex.2007) ). We susta......
  • Ron v. Airtran Airways, Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 23, 2013
    ...Airport.II. Standard of Review We review the trial court's grant of a summary judgment de novo. Ferguson v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 295 S.W.3d 642, 644 (Tex.2009) (per curiam) (citing Tex. Mun. Power Agency v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Tex., 253 S.W.3d 184, 192 (Tex.2007)). We consider all......
  • Banta Oilfield Servs., Inc. v. Mewbourne Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 4, 2018
    ...adopting a clearly inconsistent position in another proceeding to obtain an unfair advantage." Ferguson v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am. , 295 S.W.3d 642, 643 (Tex. 2009) (per curiam) (citing Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert , 264 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. 2008) ). Judicial estoppel is a r......
  • JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Prof'l Pharmacy II
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 2014
    ...from later adopting a clearly inconsistent position in another proceeding to obtain an unfair advantage. Ferguson v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 295 S.W.3d 642, 643 (Tex.2009) (citing Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, 264 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex.2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1137, 129 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 16-12 Estoppel
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Texas Commercial Causes of Action Claims Title Chapter 16 Affirmative Defenses*
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Nagle, 633 S.W.2d 796, 800 (Tex. 1982).[108] Nagle v. Nagle, 633 S.W.2d 796, 800 (Tex. 1982).[109] Ferguson v. Bldg. Materials Corp., 295 S.W.3d 642, 643 (Tex. 2009). The person must intentionally take this first position. If the person takes the position because of mere inadvertence, fr......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT