With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". disclosure was sufficient or, if it was not, whether the bankruptcy court’s abandonment can be undone in this separate litigation. Judicial estoppel is also sometimes argued when a party pursues a claim that it did not disclose in bankruptcy, see, e.g., Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 677 F.3d 258, 261-62 (5th Cir. 2012), but that equitable doctrine does not raise a jurisdictional question. So the Causeys failure to timely raise estoppel again means we cannot address it. 4 . Karry . suggested a real-party-in-interest problem ahead of trial but decided not to pursue it then. 5 . Garry also argues that the district court-erroneously relied on the "outward appearances” doctrine in finding he could be served at the Albuquerque . address. See NLRB v. Clark, 468 F.2d 459, 464 (5th Cir. 1972) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). But this misconstrues the

A: holding that actual notice of lawsuit is no substitute for substantial compliance with frcp 4d1 requiring service on person of defendant on suitable resident at defendants dwelling or on defendants agent a  judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is void and may be set aside at any time pursuant to fedrcivp 60b4 personal jurisdiction is established either by proper service of process or by the defendants waiver of any defect in the service of process
B: holding that the former husbands property from a noninterspousal gift may not be distributed under section 610751 although use of the former husbands separate property may be awarded to the former wife to satisfy the former husbands child support obligation
C: holding that when a defendant has in fact changed his residence but to all appearances is still occupying a former dwelling substituted service at the former dwelling is proper
D: holding that former employees state law claim of fraud brought against his former employer was preempted by labor management relations act
C.