Debra Baxter v. Erasmo Contreras

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12-00085-CV
DEBRA BAXTER,
Appellant
v.
ERASMO CONTRERAS,
Appellee
From the 361st District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 02-002361-CV-361
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Debra Baxter appeals from an order denying her application for an injunction that sought
to prevent the sale of certain real property through a writ of execution to collect a money
judgment she owed to Erasmo Contreras. Baxter complains that the trial court erred by
determining that she was judicially estopped from claiming certain property to be her homestead
due to contrary filings in a bankruptcy proceeding. Because we find that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Procedural History
In 2007, Erasmo Contreras was awarded a money judgment against Baxter. Sometime in
the spring or early summer of 2010, Contreras sought his first writ of execution to attempt to
collect the judgment. Baxter filed for recording a homestead designation in the deed records in
Brazos County in June of 2010, claiming that 1800 W. 28th Street in Bryan, Texas was her
homestead. At that same time, Baxter also was the owner of several adjacent lots on Marshall
Avenue in Bryan. Baxter filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy to prevent the scheduled sheriff's sale on
the Marshall Avenue property. In that proceeding, Baxter claimed that the 28th Street address
was her homestead in her bankruptcy petition, schedules, and in each of the two plans that were
filed with the bankruptcy court.
In January of 2011, Baxter filed a Voluntary Designation of Homestead for recording
declaring the Marshall Avenue property to be her homestead in accordance with Texas Property
Code Section 41.005. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 41.005 (West 2000). No revocation of the
prior designation for the 28th Street property from June of 2010 was recorded. After the date of
the January designation, Baxter filed a plan with the bankruptcy court that designated the 28th
Street property to be her homestead. Baxter's plan was amended in March of 2011 but still
claimed that her homestead was the 28th Street property. The plans filed with the bankruptcy
court provided for the payment of arrearages and unpaid property taxes on the property described
as her homestead on 28th Street. That amended plan was confirmed by the bankruptcy court in
April of 2011, but her bankruptcy was later dismissed.
After Baxter's bankruptcy was dismissed, Contreras sought a second writ of execution on
the Marshall Avenue property, which was set for a sheriff's sale in December of 2011. Baxter
filed an application for a temporary restraining order and injunction to prevent the sheriff's sale.
Baxter v. Contreras Page 2
After a hearing, the trial court denied Baxter's request and determined that Baxter was judicially
estopped from claiming the Marshall property as her homestead due to her filings in the
bankruptcy court.
Judicial Estoppel
Because Contreras alleges that Baxter previously took an inconsistent position in a
bankruptcy filing, we will apply the federal law of judicial estoppel to promote the goal of
uniformity and predictability in the prior proceedings. See Dallas Sales Co. v. Carlisle Silver
Co., 134 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, pet. denied). Under federal law, a party
which has assumed one position in its pleadings may be estopped from asserting a contrary
position in a subsequent proceeding if: (1) "the position of the party to be estopped is clearly
inconsistent with its previous one;" (2) that party convinced the court in the previous proceeding
to accept its position; and (3) that party asserted the prior position intentionally rather than
inadvertently. See In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197, 206-07 (5th Cir. 1999); see also
Dallas Sales Co., 134 S.W.3d at 931.
Baxter contends that she did not take an inconsistent position in the bankruptcy court;
however, the trial court's findings of fact included a finding that Baxter's amended plan that was
filed with the bankruptcy court constituted a representation by her that the 28th Street property
was her homestead. This position is clearly inconsistent with the premise of the designation of
her homestead on the Marshall Avenue property two months prior.
Baxter further contends that because her bankruptcy was dismissed that the bankruptcy
court did not accept her position; however, the amended plan filed with the bankruptcy court was
in fact, confirmed by that court. Confirmation of her plan and its terms was an acceptance of her
position.
Baxter v. Contreras Page 3
Baxter lastly contends that her bankruptcy was ultimately dismissed because she did not
agree with the terms of her bankruptcy plan which proposed to surrender the Marshall Avenue
property if she was unable to make a lump sum payment in July of 2011, and when she refused
the case was dismissed. However, Baxter does not explain or contend that there was any
evidence that the bankruptcy court was ever informed that her homestead had allegedly changed
either by filing amended schedules or altering her plan or that the failure to do so was
inadvertent.
We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Baxter was
judicially estopped from claiming the Marshall Avenue property as her homestead in the
designation of homestead that was filed in January of 2011. We overrule Baxter's sole issue.
Conclusion
Having found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed May 30, 2013
[CV06]
Baxter v. Contreras Page 4