Opinion ID: 1938270
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Motion to Amend at the Close of Trial.

Text: National Produce discovered the existence of R & R's loans to Rosenthal only after appellants introduced R & R's 1980 and 1981 corporate tax returns into evidence. It contended in the trial court, and now argues to us, that its opponents' failure to object to its cross-examination of Rosenthal regarding the loans demonstrates that he gave his implied consent to the trial of the piercing issue. See Moore v. Moore, 391 A.2d 762, 768-69 (D.C.1978). National Produce insists that under the liberal provisions of the Superior Court's Civil Rules relating to amendment of pleadings, it was entitled to amend its pleadings to conform to the evidence. See Johnson v. Ridgeway, 354 A.2d 851, 852 (D.C.1976) (per curiam) (citing authority, omitted here, for the proposition that the purpose of these rules is to avoid the tyranny of formalism); Super.Ct.Civ.R. 15(b). We cannot agree. Rule 15(b) requires the court to treat issues which have been tried with the implied consent of the parties as if they had been raised in the pleadings. This court has held that [t]he clearest indications of a party's implied consent to try an issue lie in the failure to object to evidence, or in the introduction of evidence which is clearly apposite to the new issue but not to other matters in the pleadings. Moore, supra, 391 A.2d at 768. To justify a finding of implied consent, it must appear that the parties understood [that] the evidence was aimed at the unpleaded issue. State v. Peterson, 104 Wis.2d 616, 630, 312 N.W.2d 784, 791 (1981) (relying on interpretations of the federal rule to interpret the parellel Wisconsin rule); 6A C.A. WRIGHT, A. MILLER & M. KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1493, at 40 (2d ed. 1990) (stating the same with regard to the federal rule); see also Moore, supra, 391 A.2d at 768 (stating that the interpretation of Rule 15(b) of the Civil Rules of Procedure is aided by interpretations of the analogous federal rule). In Moore, this court considered the propriety of an award of separate maintenance in favor of a wife at the conclusion of a husband's suit for custody of their son. On appeal by the husband, the court rejected the wife's argument that the parties had tried the issue of her separate maintenance by implied consent after the husband had failed to object to evidence of her financial needs. Id. 391 A.2d at 770. The court held that this evidence was not so uniquely pertinent to her support alone, in contrast with the custody or the child support issues,[ [16] ] that it justifies our concluding that [the plaintiff] had adequate, timely notice of, and an opportunity to contest, a claim by his wife for her own support. Id. The amended complaint in this case contained an averment that Rosenthal defrauded National Produce by failing to inform it that his business was incorporated. National Produce also alleged that the transfer in 1984 of many of R & R's assets to Rosenthal constituted a fraudulent conveyance. With the exception of the testimony regarding the 1980 and 1981 loans, National Produce points to nothing in the transcript or record to support its argument that the piercing issue was tried by implied consent. In light of the claims of fraud and fraudulent conveyance, we cannot conclude that the evidence of the loans was uniquely pertinent to the piercing issue. Moore, supra, 391 A.2d at 770. Moreover, the evidence of the loans was presented immediately before the conclusion of the trial. If the judge had permitted so belated an amendment, this would not have given Rosenthal timely notice of the piercing issue or a reasonable opportunity to contest it. National Produce cites Rule 15(b) for the proposition that the trial court could have granted a brief continuance to allow Rosenthal and R & R time to prepare to respond to the newly enunciated theory. The provision of Rule 15(b) authorizing such a continuance, however, applies to the situation which arises when, after a party has objected to evidence as not conforming to the pleadings, the offering party responds by moving to amend his pleadings and the court grants the motion to amend. Super.Ct. Civ.R. 15(b). That is not what occurred here. [17] We conclude that, on the basis of the record as it existed when he ruled, the trial judge correctly denied National Produce's motion to amend. Accordingly, his refusal to pierce the corporate veil was not erroneous.