Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.

608 U. S. ___ (2026) · 6/11/26

To determine whether an omission of a claim in the bankruptcy context was inadvertent or mistaken for purposes of the judicial estoppel doctrine, courts should look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the omission; the Fifth Circuit erred in narrowing its inquiry in this case to whether the debtor had knowledge of the underlying facts or a potential motive to conceal the claim.

Thomas Keathley and his wife filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in U. S. Bankruptcy Court in December 2019. The Bankruptcy Code requires debtors to file bankruptcy schedules listing their property, including “[c]laims against third parties, whether or not [the debtor] ha[s] filed a lawsuit or made a demand for payment.” Official Form 106A/B, Schedule A/B: Property, Pt. 4, Question 33. Debtors must swear “[u]nder penalty of perjury” that the information provided is “true and correct.” Official Form 106Dec, Declaration About an Individual Debtor’s Schedules. In April 2020, based on the…

Held: To determine whether an omission of a claim in the bankruptcy context was inadvertent or mistaken for purposes of judicial estoppel, courts should look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the omission; the Fifth Circuit erred by artificially narrowing its inquiry to whether the debtor had knowledge of the underlying facts or a potential motive to conceal the claim. Pp. 6–9. (a) Judicial estoppel is an “equitable doctrine” intended “to protect the integrity of the judicial process” by “prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of…