Opinion ID: 4294629
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Fustolo's Testimony

Text: Finally, we reach Patriot's examination of Fustolo on trial day four. The bankruptcy court found that Fustolo's failure to object to Patriot's line of questioning constitute[d] acquiescence at trial in the introduction of evidence which was more strongly relevant to the issue of Fustolo's noncompliance with the December 31st Order. Fustolo, 563 B.R. at 108. Patriot's counsel's questions and Fustolo's answers addressed Fustolo's compliance, or non-compliance, with the December 31 Order. But, again, the substance of the unchallenged testimony is pertinent to other claims already presented. While the testimony also relates to a possible § 727(a)(6) claim, stray references that arguably point to a new claim cannot easily generate a finding of acquiescence when they are accompanied by an -25- express disavowal of such a claim that is not itself recanted until months after the trial. Accordingly, Fustolo's testimony was not relevant only to the unpleaded issue and therefore cannot be construed to imply consent.