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

Heading: Patriot's Opening Statement

Text: We turn next to Patriot's opening statement at trial, at which Patriot's counsel proclaimed that the evidence will also show that Mr. Fustolo has repeatedly abused the bankruptcy process, violated this Court's orders, failed to preserve evidence and based on the totality of all of the evidence we will ask your Honor to deny Mr. Fustolo a discharge with prejudice. The bankruptcy court found that this statement, and the court's subsequent inquiry about the existence (or lack thereof) of a subsection (a)(6) claim put Fustolo on notice at the very outset of the trial of the possibility of a § 727(a)(6)(A) claim. In re Fustolo, 563 B.R. at 106. Fustolo argued before the bankruptcy court that Patriot's denial of the existence of an (a)(6) claim constituted a waiver, an argument that the court rejected. See id. Fustolo again raises this argument on appeal, adding for support Patriot's limited request for relief as sanctions for Fustolo's disobedience of the December 31 Order. We need not delve into the merits of this argument as we find that Patriot's -23- opening statement did not provide adequate notice of a trial on the failure-to-obey-a-lawful-court-order subsection (a)(6)(A) claim. The bankruptcy court reasoned that Patriot's accurate response about the absence of a § 727(a)(6) cause of action did not nullify the notice provided by Patriot's opening statement because later evidence, particularly his testimony, introduced at trial pertained to the unpleaded claim. Id. at 106-07. But, the bankruptcy court did not account for Patriot's failure to raise a request for amendment of its pleadings during the two trial days5 following Fustolo's testimony, and the court's own recitation at the trial's conclusion of the claims litigated, and Patriot's affirmation of those claims. Additionally, Patriot's inclusion of the court-order violation in its opening statement, combined with its disavowal of the existence of an (a)(6) claim immediately following, supports the conclusion that Fustolo's violation of court orders was relevant to the extant claims. Cf. United States v. Ciampa, 793 F.2d 19, 25 (1st Cir. 1986) (finding trial judge's interruption of opening statement alluding to evidence of only collateral relevance was justified); United States v. Hershenow, 680 F.2d 847, 858 (1st Cir. 1982) (The function of the defendant's opening statement is to enable him to inform the court and jury 5 The trial was held on non-consecutive days. -24- what he expects to prove . . . . (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Freeman, 514 F.2d 1184, 1192 (10th Cir. 1975))). In light of this repeated confirmation that no § 727(a)(6) claim was to be or had been litigated, and the ambiguity related to the violat[ion] of this Court's orders noted in part II(C)(1) supra, Patriot's opening statement did not provide adequate notice of the claim raised in Patriot's motion to amend. Patriot's lack of objection did not constitute implied consent.