Petitioners' Brief on the Merits - Supreme Court of Texas

(R. at 395, 449). Additionally, the Fergusons’ bankruptcy counsel’s explanation
for the inadvertent omission of this case from the initial Schedule B was not a
“tactical explanation” but instead reflects that the omission was merely due to a
clerical error. (R. at 378-81, 394). Finally, unlike the Dallas Sales plaintiff, the
Fergusons have filed amended schedules to reflect their personal injury case as
well as informed the trustee and the bankruptcy court of the existence of such
claims. (R. at 368, 375-76, 395, 448-49).
4. Estel v. Bigelow Mgmt., Inc.
In Estel, the debtor allegedly mistakenly left out a potential asset in his
representations to the bankruptcy court. Estel v. Bigelow Mgmt., Inc., 323 B.R.
918, 921 (E.D. Tex. 2005). Based on these representations, the bankruptcy court
issued a no asset discharge adopting the debtor’s position that there was no claim
or suit. Id. at 922. The court concluded that by issuing a no asset discharge, the
bankruptcy court adopted the debtor’s position that there were no assets.
Moreover, in Estel, in an attempt to avoid the consequences of having failed to
disclose certain claims to the bankruptcy court, the debtor moved to reopen the
bankruptcy proceedings in order to amend its bankruptcy schedule. Id. at 921.
Citing In re Superior Crewboats, Inc., 374 F.3d 330 (5 th Cir. 2004), the court
noted that a debtor should not be able to reopen the bankruptcy proceeding to
amend his petition, noting that “[t]his is the very abuse that judicial estoppel was
designed to prevent.” Estel, 323 B.R. at 923. The court stated that “‘[a]llowing
[the debtor] to back-up, reopen the bankruptcy case, and amend his bankruptcy
PETITIONERS’ BRIEF ON THE MERITS 26