Judicial Authority, and the Slow Erosion by Washington Courts

Generally, an individual filing for bankruptcy must disclose all their assets to the Court when filing for bankruptcy. Only in this way can the Court truly have an accurate picture of how to proceed.   In fact, it is generally accepted that a pending claim for damages is considered an asset which must be disclosed, since it could result in recovery of money that can be used to pay creditors. In fact, it is well settled that a failure to disclose a potential claim in bankruptcy proceedings warrants dismissal of the claim. See Cunningham v. Reliable Concrete Pumping, Inc., 126 Wn. App. 222, 108 P.3d 147 (2005).In Cunningham, the plaintiff filed a bankruptcy petition without disclosing his personal injury claim against his former employer. The trial court concluded that judicial estoppel barred the action, and granted the employers motion for summary judgment.In a stark reversal of this well-settled principal, on September 4, 2018, the Washington State Court of Appeals for Division I rendered a serious blow to the honesty and forthcoming disclosure upon which notions of fair play and justice are premised. In the case of Hishm Chonah v, Coastal Villages, No. 76201-0-I, the failure to make full disclosures to the court was allowed, and indeed, rewarded. Quoting the trial court, they agreed that “language and cultural barriers, quirks of maritime and bankruptcy law, and questionable legal advice all combine to ameliorate the plaintiff’s actions to a degree that shifts the equities.”What the Court has done is effectively rewarded the failure to follow rules, not because the rules themselves are difficult, but that the persons required to follow them found them difficult. Picking and choosing people who have to follow the rules, and those who don’t have to follow them is the essence of unfairness which undermines the Court’s authority as an impartial decision maker.