Carrol v. Prosser (In re Jeffrey J. Prosser)

Citation: 
Carrol v. Prosser (In re Jeffrey J. Prosser), Case No. 12-2864 (3d Cir. Aug. 1, 2013) (not precedential)
Ruling: 
Affirmed judgment of the District Court. Appellant, a defendant in a fraudulent conveyance action before the District Court, moved to dismiss before the District Court prior to trial, which motion was denied. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff/Appellee, Appellant filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b), which was similarly denied. Appellant argued on appeal to the Third Circuit that (i) the District Court erred in denying the motion to dismiss as the claims were barred under theories of collateral estoppel, judicial estoppel and election of remedies, and (ii) the District Court erred in denying her motion for judgment as a matter of law. The Third Circuit ruled the District Court did not err when it denied Appellant's motion to dismiss because the estoppel theories tendered by Appellant did not merit dismissal of the subject claims since Apellee/plaintiff-below was permitted to pursue alternative theories. With respect to the motion for judgment as matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b), the Third Circuit agreed with the District Court that the argument had been waived and, if not otherwise been waived, the argumet failed as a matter of law.
Procedural context: 
Appellant appealed orders entered by the District Court denying her (i) motion to dismiss based upon theories of collateral estoppel, judicial estoppel and election of remedies, and (ii) post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Facts: 
The Chapter 7 trustee of the estate of Jeffrey Prosser asserted a fraudulent conveyance action against Appellant, the wife of Mr. Prosser, based upon the alleged fact that Appellant was the recipient of millions of dollars in real and personal property from Mr. Prosser. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the action based upon the fact that the fraudulent transfer issues had already been decided by prior order of the Bankruptcy Court. The motion to dismiss was denied by the District Court and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Chapter 7 trustee.
Appellant then filed a post-trial motion for judgment pursuant to Rule 50(b) on the basis that the Chapter 7 trustee had failed to prove that the subject transfers were fraudulent. The District Court denied the motion for judgment, finding that the arguments had been waived and otherwise failed on the merits.
Judge(s): 
McKee, , Chief Judge, Scirica and Vanaskie, Circuit Judges