Petitioners' Brief on the Merits - Supreme Court of Texas

Statement of Financial Affairs, to the bankruptcy court, to the bankruptcy trustee,
and to the creditors and thereafter amended his Schedule B to reflect the his
pending claims.
The present case is also analogous to Eubanks v. CBSK Fin. Group, Inc.,
385 F.3d 894, 898 (6 th Cir. 2004). In Eubanks, the record established that the
plaintiffs amended the bankruptcy schedules once, and attempted to amend them a
second time, to finally place the defendant on the schedule as a creditor and
potential asset. Id. at 898-99. The defendant offered no additional evidence that
the plaintiffs demonstrated fraudulent intentions towards the court. Id. at 899.
Additionally, the record established that the plaintiffs put the court and the trustee
on notice through correspondence, motions, and status conference requests. Id.
Having adopted the Fifth Circuit’s analysis in In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d
197 (5 th Cir. 1999) regarding when a debtor’s failure to disclose a claim in
bankruptcy might be inadvertent, the Eubanks court concluded that application of
judicial estoppel to bar the plaintiff’s claims would be inappropriate in this
situation. Eubanks, 385 F.3d at 898.
Similarly, in Thompson v. Continental Airlines, 18 S.W.3d 701, 704-05
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.), the San Antonio Court of Appeals
reversed a summary judgment concluding that the application of judicial estoppel
was improper. In Thompson, the plaintiff suffered an injury while deplaning from
a Continental Airlines flight. Id. at 702. For unrelated reasons, on April 26, 1995,
the plaintiffs filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Id. In their bankruptcy filings, the
PETITIONERS’ BRIEF ON THE MERITS 20