By Dynele Schinker-Kuharich, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Canton, OH) On Thursday, September 16, 2021, the bankruptcy community lost a good friend and esteemed colleague, Robert S. Thomas II. In an effort to pay tribute to Robert, who was loved and respected by so many, The NACTT Academy is privileged to share comments, thoughts, and tributes made by Robert’s bankruptcy colleagues....
In re Oparaji
Print This Article
Link to Post:
In re Oparaji, 2010 WL 5462456 (Bankr. S.D. Texas, December 29, 2010) (Isgur)
The doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a creditor from asserting a proof of claim in a debtor’s second Chapter 13 case that is inconsistent from the claim it asserted in the debtor’s first Chapter 13 case.
Case Summary
Titus Oparaji filed his first bankruptcy petition in 2004. Wells Fargo filed a number of claims in the case (five in total), but after it filed the fourth claim in December 2008, the Court approved a modification of Oparaji’s . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
Critical Case Comment – Present Tense in § 544(b)
What IS a Principal Residence?
Critical Case Comment – Playing the System – Good or Bad Thing??
From the Editor
I Win. I Win. Trustee Holds Record for Having the Oldest Open Chapter 13 Case
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa Ten Years After
Passing of Affable, Humanitarian Trustee
Is an Unemployment Compensation Payment Exempt?
From the Editor – Claims
From the Editor – Lien Issues