Opinion ID: 2999727
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of Two Documents

Text: Salem argues that the bankruptcy court erred by excluding two documents: a 1992 complaint against the builder of the house, and a decision by a state court dismissing that complaint. The bankruptcy court found this evidence irrelevant: “What happened in your litigation with the developer is not important. The question is what the condition of the house is right now, regardless of who was responsible for it.” Salem thinks that the evidence would have bolstered his own testimony about the defects and thus the absence of value in the house. We review the 18 No. 05-1914 exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Goodman v. Ill. Dept. of Financial and Professional Regulation, 430 F.3d 432, 438-39 (7th Cir. 2005). This evidence, at most, sheds light on the condition of the house prior to 1992. The court had before it the more recent appraisals of two different experts as well as testimony about the condition of the house. The excluded documents were quite unnecessary.