EDWARD C. VINING, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
HOWARD I. SEGAL, BERNICE YELLEN AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LORRAINE K. SEGAL, AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Estoppel cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, J.
We reverse the order dismissing the proceedings to enforce a judgment and dissolving the writs of garnishment, as the trial court erred in relying on the doctrine of judicial estoppel. That doctrine does not support the order: Howard I. Segal did not detrimentally rely on Edward C. Vining’s failure, in Vining’s bankruptcy action, to disclose an asset, namely a judgment against Segal. The failure to disclose an asset in a bankruptcy action does not justify the application of judicial estoppel in a subsequent action absent a showing of detrimental reliance. See Ramsey v. Jonassen, 737 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). “[T]he party claiming the estoppel must have been misled and have changed his position; and an estoppel is not raised by conduct of one party to a suit, unless by reason thereof the other party has been so placed as to make it to act in reliance upon it unjust to him to allow that first party to subsequently change his position.” Id. at 1116 (quoting Chase & Co. v. Little, 116 Fla. 667, 156 So. 609, 610 (1934)). Accordingly, Vining is entitled to proceed in enforcing the judgment against Segal.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grau v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 899 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…parties to the bankruptcy action. During the bankruptcy, Grau’s valuation of the disability claims ■ and his statements about his disability did not prejudice the insurance companies, which were not creditors in the bankruptcy. See Vining v. Segal, 773 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding a judgment debtor could not assert judicial estoppel in a proceeding to enforce the judgment, where the judgment holder failed to disclose the judgment as an asset in his bankruptcy proceeding); Ramsey v. Jonassen, 737 So…1 / 2
-
S. Fla. Coastal Elec., Inc. v. Treasures ON the BAY II Condo Ass'n, Inc., 89 So. 3d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…his case. Judicial estoppel applies only when a party takes inconsistent positions in separate judicial proceedings and thus causes prejudice to its adversary. Olmsted v. Emmanuel, 783 So. 2d 1122, 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); see also Vining v. Segal, 773 So. 2d 1243, 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Moreover, to trigger the doctrine, the positions must be “inherently inconsistent.” See Smith v. Avatar, 714 So. 2d 1103, 1107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (finding there was no inherent inconsistency in a plaintiffs claiming disabi…
-
In re Se. Banking Corp. Sec. & Loan Loss Reserves Litig., 147 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (S.D. Fla. 2001)…1103, 1107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). In order for the Court to determine that the elements of judicial estoppel have been satisfied, it would have to find that Steel Hector detrimentally relied on the Trustee’s representations. See Vining v. Segal, 773 So.2d 1243 (Fla.3rd DCA 2000). Evidence has not been presented on this issue, and indeed, cannot be presented for the purposes of resolving the motion to dismiss. See McWhirter, Reeves, McGothlin, Davidson, Rief & Bakas, P.A. v. Weiss, 704 So.2d 214, 215…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chase & Co. v. Little, 116 Fla. 667 (Fla. 1934)
- Ramsey v. Jonassen, 737 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)