Machevsky

Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Machevsky

Good Law
81 F. App'x 241
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 17, 2003No. 02-56508California569 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

The district court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff Security Insurance *242 Company of Hartford in this declaratory judgment action. The district court held that Defendant Nicholay Machevsky is judicially estopped from asserting any claim based on a scheduled valuable possessions insurance policy covering certain artwork. Reviewing de novo the grant of summary judgment, Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir.2003), and reviewing for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to invoke judicial estoppel, Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir.2001), we affirm.

Defendant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1999; he had possessed the artwork since 1993 and had insured it at least since 1997. In the bankruptcy schedules pertaining to personal property, Defendant answered “none”-under oath-in response to questions asking him to list all “pictures and other art objects, antiques, ... and other collections or collectibles,” “interests in insurance policies,” and “equitable or future interests, life estates, and rights or powers exercisable for the benefit of the debtor other than those listed in Schedule of Real…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.