Conger v. Clark — Idaho Supreme Court rejects tenant’s bid to enforce undisclosed purchase option

Case
Jeff Conger v. Jay P. Clark
Court
Supreme Court of the State of Idaho
Judge
Justice Meyer
Date Decided
September 4, 2026
Docket No.
52800
Topics
Bankruptcy; Standing; Real estate options; Lease agreements
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Jeff Conger entered a residential lease agreement with Jay P. Clark in 2016 for a Mountain Home home. The agreement included an option for Conger to buy the property after satisfying a Wells Fargo mortgage held in Clark’s name. Conger paid $8,000 for the option.

About 18 months later, Conger filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. His schedules identified Clark as an unsecured creditor and listed rent as an expense, but denied any legal or equitable interest in real property, security deposits, future interests, executory contracts, or unexpired leases. After receiving a discharge, Conger sought in 2022 to exercise the option. Clark refused, and Conger sued for specific performance and declaratory relief.

The Court’s Holding

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Conger’s claims because he lacked standing to enforce the purchase option. The option was a prepetition contractual interest and thus became property of the Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate when Conger filed his petition.

Conger did not adequately schedule either the lease agreement or the option. Listing rent and identifying Clark as a creditor did not disclose those interests, especially where Conger answered “No” to the schedules addressing interests in real property, security deposits, and executory contracts or unexpired leases. Because the asset was not properly scheduled, it was not technically abandoned when the bankruptcy case closed and remained estate property under 11 U.S.C. § 554(d). The bankruptcy trustee—not Conger—was therefore the real party in interest. The Court did not reach judicial estoppel.

Key Takeaways

  • A debtor’s prepetition option to purchase real property becomes property of the Chapter 7 estate.
  • Disclosing rent payments and naming a landlord as a creditor does not adequately schedule a lease-purchase agreement or purchase option.
  • Rejection of an executory contract is not abandonment; an unscheduled asset remains property of the estate after the case closes.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores the consequences of incomplete bankruptcy schedules for debtors asserting later claims based on prepetition contracts. A closed Chapter 7 case does not return an undisclosed asset to the debtor simply because the trustee did not administer it.

For litigants facing this issue, the proper course may be to reopen the bankruptcy case and address the estate’s interest through the trustee. Here, Conger did not obtain substitution or ratification by a trustee, and he did not challenge the denial of a stay to pursue that route.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top