Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. · ¶51

There were other, more equitable options available that would have served the underlying goals of judicial estoppel. For instance, because the Keathleys had not yet completed the repayment process at the time Keathley filed this claim, the Bankruptcy Court retained jurisdiction over the bankruptcy. That court was better positioned than both the District Court and Fifth Circuit in the personal-injury suit to address any harm to creditors caused by Keathley’s belated disclosure of the suit in the bankruptcy proceeding. In the wake of that disclosure, the Bankruptcy Court could have imposed sanctions, Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 9011, or modified the repayment plan, 11 U. S. C. §1329. It could have even converted this Chapter 13 bankruptcy to a Chapter 7 case, which would have allowed a trustee to pursue this suit on the creditors’ behalf. See §§323(b), 704(a)(1), 1307(c); Marrama v. Citizens…

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