Ricketts v. Strange, 293 Va. 101, 796 S.E.2d 182 (2017)
Feb 16, 2017OUTCOME: Affirmed
In Ricketts v. Strange, the Supreme Court of Virginia unanimously affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the plaintiff’s failure to schedule during h ... er Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding her personal injury claim against the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant had been involved in a motor vehicle accident in February 2012. In September 2012, the plaintiff filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. She received a discharge in December 2012. She filed suit against the defendant in January 2014. In her bankruptcy schedules, the plaintiff was asked to identify any and all “contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature.” In response, she answered “None.” Elsewhere in her schedules, however, when asked to identify any “liquidated debts owed to [the] debtor,” she wrote “[p]otential funds due to Debtor unknown at this time, including … possible garnishment funds, insurance proceeds, proceeds related to claims or causes of action that may be asserted by the debtor.” It was this language, and this language alone, that the plaintiff claimed to capture her personal injury claim against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's failure to schedule her personal injury claim deprived her of standing to pursue it. In affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that language in her schedules upon which the plaintiff relied to be “overly general at best and boilerplate at worst." Even if this language “was a sincere attempt” on the part of the plaintiff to schedule her cause of action, it was listed in the wrong location. For these reasons, the plaintiff’s cause of action “remained an asset of the bankruptcy estate” and the plaintiff “lacked standing to assert it.” Because the plaintiff lacked standing to sue, her lawsuit against the defendant “was a legal nullity” and did nothing to toll the statute of limitations applicable to her claim. The Supreme Court also affirmed the trial court's denial of the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her Complaint to substitute in her place the bankruptcy trustee, holding such a motion to be improper. For the Supreme Court’s full opinion, please visit: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1160311.pdf.