Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. · ¶50

Take the facts of this case as an example. At the time the District Court applied judicial estoppel to dismiss petitioner Keathley’s tort claim against respondent, Keathley and his wife were operating under an amended repayment plan in which they still needed to make interest-free payments to creditors for about four more years. If the District Court had not applied judicial estoppel, and if Keathley had prevailed on the merits of that tort claim, any judgment he received could have been used in turn to pay creditors interest or shorten the repayment period or both. See, e.g., 11 U. S. C. §§1329(a)(1)–(2). By applying judicial estoppel, the courts below prevented Keathley from recovering any money at all and thus “vaporiz[ed] assets that could [have been] used for the creditors’ benefit.” Biesek v. Soo Line R. Co., 440 F. 3d 410, 413 (CA7 2006). They also gave respondent, the employer…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.