Petitioners' Brief on the Merits - Supreme Court of Texas

that resolution by summary judgment is inappropriate when questions of motive
and intent are in dispute)). Therefore, the court reversed the summary judgment
concluding that the evidence demonstrated that the plaintiffs were not attempting
to play “fast and loose” with the courts. Id. at 705
Likewise, in In re Griner, 240 B.R. 432, 438-39 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 1999), a
federal bankruptcy court held that judicial estoppel did not bar a plaintiff from
pursuing a lawsuit that was inadvertently left off the asset schedules filed in a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. In the Griner case, the debtor had listed its
lawsuit in the statement of financial affairs filed with the bankruptcy court but did
not list the lawsuit in the bankruptcy schedules. Id. at 434. The plaintiff’s Chapter
13 bankruptcy plan was confirmed. Id. at 434. After receiving a verdict in their
favor, the plaintiffs filed amended schedules and sought an amendment to their
Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan. Id. at 434. The court rejected the defendant’s
contention that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by judicial estoppel because the
plaintiffs’ bankruptcy had not yet been discharged and the plaintiffs amended their
bankruptcy schedules to reflect the lawsuit. Id. at 438. The court concluded that
the plaintiffs complied with their obligations to submit amended schedules at any
time before the bankruptcy is closed and that there was no evidence that the
plaintiffs attempted to conceal their lawsuit as they had initially listed it on their
statement of financial affairs filed in the bankruptcy court. Id. at 439. In light of
the plaintiff’s initial listing of the lawsuit in their statement of financial affairs, the
court concluded that the evidence demonstrated that the plaintiffs mistakenly
PETITIONERS’ BRIEF ON THE MERITS 22