How To Prove A Texas Judicial Estoppel Defense
In Texas, a defense of Judicial Estoppel is defined as:
Judicial estoppel (also known as estoppel by inconsistent positions, collateral estoppel, or estoppel by judgment) is an estoppel that precludes a party from taking a position in a case that is contrary to a position it has taken in earlier legal proceedings that have already been decided.
It simply means:
Once an issue has been decided in court, parties cannot attempt another trial taking a different position than the one originally taken.
There are 5 elements of the defense:
- Element 1. There were two different legal proceedings involving the plaintiff. Judicial estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from taking contradictory positions in different legal cases, so if the plaintiff was involved in two separate legal actions with conflicting claims, this could be used to argue that they shouldn’t be allowed to change their story.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff initiated a personal injury lawsuit in 2020, claiming damages for an accident that occurred in 2019.
* In 2021, the plaintiff filed for bankruptcy, listing the same personal injury claim as an asset in the bankruptcy proceedings.
* The plaintiff received a settlement from the personal injury lawsuit while simultaneously pursuing debt relief in bankruptcy court.
* The plaintiff’s statements in the bankruptcy filings contradicted the claims made in the personal injury lawsuit regarding the extent of damages.
* The plaintiff failed to disclose the outcome of the personal injury lawsuit during the bankruptcy proceedings, raising questions of inconsistency. - Element 2. The plaintiff made a sworn statement in the prior proceeding that was inconsistent with a statement in the subsequent proceeding. The plaintiff previously made a sworn statement in one case that contradicts what they said in a later case, which can be used to argue that they should not be allowed to change their story in court.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* In the prior proceeding, the plaintiff testified under oath that they had no knowledge of the incident in question.
* In the subsequent proceeding, the plaintiff claimed to have witnessed the incident firsthand, contradicting their earlier sworn statement.
* The plaintiff’s sworn statement in the prior proceeding was recorded and is part of the official court transcript.
* The plaintiff did not provide any explanation for the inconsistency between their two sworn statements.
* The prior proceeding was concluded before the subsequent proceeding, establishing a clear timeline of the plaintiff’s statements. - Element 3. The party now sought to be estopped successfully maintained the prior position. The party trying to use judicial estoppel argued that they had previously taken a consistent position in court, and now they wanted to prevent the other side from contradicting that earlier stance.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The party previously asserted in court that they were not liable for the damages claimed by the plaintiff.
* In a prior bankruptcy proceeding, the party listed their assets and liabilities, omitting the claim now being pursued.
* The party successfully argued in an earlier case that the contract in question was void due to lack of consideration.
* During a previous deposition, the party maintained that they had no knowledge of the events leading to the current dispute.
* The party filed tax returns that did not include the income related to the claim now being litigated. - Element 4. The prior inconsistent statement was not made inadvertently or because of mistake, fraud, or duress. This means that the person intentionally made a statement that contradicts their earlier claims, and it wasn’t due to a simple error, trickery, or pressure, which is important for the court to consider in deciding whether to apply judicial estoppel.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The individual had legal representation during the prior statement, indicating a deliberate choice rather than an inadvertent error.
* The prior statement was made under oath, demonstrating a conscious decision to provide that information.
* The individual had ample opportunity to review and correct the prior statement before it was submitted.
* The context of the prior statement involved a detailed discussion, suggesting a clear understanding of the implications of the information provided.
* The individual has a history of making similar statements in other legal contexts, indicating a pattern of intentional misrepresentation. - Element 5. The statement was deliberate, clear and unequivocal. The statement was made intentionally and without any ambiguity, meaning it was straightforward and left no room for misunderstanding, which is an important part of the Judicial Estoppel Defense in legal cases.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant made a public statement during a court proceeding that explicitly outlined their position on the matter at hand.
* The defendant submitted a signed affidavit that clearly articulated their understanding and acceptance of the facts relevant to the case.
* The defendant’s prior testimony was unambiguous and directly addressed the issues being litigated, leaving no room for interpretation.
* The defendant consistently maintained the same position in multiple legal documents, demonstrating a clear and deliberate intent.
* The defendant’s statements were made in a formal setting, ensuring that they were understood as definitive and intentional declarations.
(See In Re Marriage of Butts, 444 S. W. 3d 147 (Tex. Court of Appeals 2014).)
If you’re representing yourself in court and plan to assert a Defense of Judicial Estoppel, it’s essential to have a solid strategy in place. With a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5, you’ll gain the tools to determine what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Don’t navigate this complex process alone—equip yourself for success.
Prove Your TX Judicial Estoppel Defense
U.S. Civil Cases Only