|
P1055 Since a corporation owned by plaintiff was without assets, it did not have the ability to defend a cross-claim filed against it, and since it was essentially defunct, plaintiff had no incentive to defend it, so a default judgment entered against it on the cross-claim should not result in collateral estoppel leading to judgment against plaintiff; since a bankruptcy court did not accept plaintiff's failure to list a claim against defendant as an asset in a prior bankruptcy proceeding and dismissed the bankruptcy without accepting plaintiff's statement or confirming any form of bankruptcy relief, plaintiff's failure to list the claim should not judicially estop him from asserting it.CitationGOTTLIEB v KEST (Two Estoppels) 141 CA4 110 [See: Rodgers v Sargent 136 CA4 82, P/AT 3/06; Daar & Newman v VRL 129 CA4 482, P/AT 7/05; International v Feddersen 64 CA4 345, T/AT 7/98; Zedner v US 126 SCt 1976]
|
|
