Judicial Estoppel Not A Slam Dunk

Seeing my Virginia Cavaliers lose to the Syracuse Orange and reading Mefford v. Norton Hospitals, reminds me that any discussion of judicial estoppel needs to be tempered by the doctrine's exceptions and that the game is not over after the first half. In Mefford, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the trial court'ssummary judgment based on judicial estoppel. The debtor initially filed for Chapter 13 relief. Post-confirmation,Norton treated the debtor in its emergency room. The debtor moved to suspend her plan payments due tohaving "suffered several strokes and being unable to work." Shortly after suspending her plan payments, the debtor's malpractice counsel put Norton on notice of the potential claim and filed suit. The debtor continued to have difficulty making plan payments and the bankruptcy court ordered the dismissal of the case ifthe debtor failed to turnover her2012 tax refund. Facing dismissal, the debtor moved to convert the case to one under Chapter 7.