In Jinright v. Paulk, 758 So. 2d 553 (Ala. 2000) the Court held that the doctrine of judicial estoppel did not apply to bar bankruptcy debtors from pursuing their claims because, "although the Jinrights' initial failure in their bankruptcy proceedings to list their claim against Paulk and Option Builders as an asset was inconsistent with the claims they made in their lawsuit against Paulk and Option Builders, nothing before us indicates that the Jinrights will benefit from that omission, nor has there been any showing that Paulk and Option Builders have been prejudiced by the omission." (758 So. 2d at 560.)