Court Opinion

ID: 2964153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:24.944862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:51.470205
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2311
                                 ALAN D. WILLIAMSON,

                                      Appellant,

                                          v.

                                  LEWIS J. BUSCONI,

                                      Appellee.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                                 Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                      _____________

                            and Cummings,* Circuit Judge.
                                           _____________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Rosario Mario F. Rizzo for appellant.
             ______________________
             Howard  P. Blatchford, Jr., with  whom Bruce F.  Smith and Jager,
             __________________________             _______________     ______
        Smith, Stetler & Arata, P.C. were on brief for appellee.
        ____________________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                     July 3, 1996
                                                     
                                 ____________________
                            
        ____________________

             *Of the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

                    CYR,  Circuit  Judge.   Appellant  Alan  D.  Williamson
                    CYR,  Circuit  Judge.
                          ______________

          challenges a bankruptcy court ruling excluding evidence probative

          of  the chapter  7  debtor-appellee Lewis  J. Busconi's  putative

          intent  to  defraud  Williamson  in  a  substantial  real  estate

          transaction.   In  due course  Williamson commenced  an adversary

          proceeding in the bankruptcy  court to except his claim  from the

          chapter 7  discharge on the ground that the debt had been induced

          by  fraud.   See  Bankruptcy Code     523(a)(2)(A), 11  U.S.C.   
                       ___

          523(a)(2)(A)  (1994).   Following  careful review  of the  entire

          record,  we  conclude  that   the  bankruptcy  court  abused  its

          discretion  by excluding  the  proffered evidence,  but that  the

          error did not affect substantial rights. 

                    At the bench trial, Williamson unsuccessfully attempted

          to introduce  evidence as to various  events, including Busconi's

          conduct,  subsequent   to  the  closing  of   their  real  estate

          transaction,  from  which  a  factfinder  reasonably  could  have

          inferred that  Busconi had not  intended to pay  the note  at the

          time it was executed.   The evidence was excluded  as irrelevant.

          Nonetheless,  after hearing  the testimony  of both  parties, the

          bankruptcy  judge expressly  credited Busconi's  testimony, found

          that Williamson had failed  to establish the requisite fraudulent

          intent,  and  ruled  the   Williamson  debt  dischargeable.    On

          intermediateappeal, thedistrictcourtaffirmed withoutelaboration.1
                              
          ____________________

               1The  district court's  conclusions of  law are  reviewed de
                                                                         __
          novo, Petit v. Fessenden, 80 F.3d 29, 32 (1st Cir. 1996); Fed. R.
          ____ ______    _________
          Bankr.  P. 8013.    The bankruptcy  court's factual  findings are
          reviewed  for clear  error.   Id.    Evidentiary rulings  by  the
                                        __
          bankruptcy  court  are  subject  to  the  "abuse  of  discretion"

                                          2

                    As  direct evidence  is  seldom  available,  fraudulent

          intent  normally   is  determined   from  the  totality   of  the

          circumstances.  Charlie Kelton's Pontiac,  Cadillac, Oldsmobile &
                          _________________________________________________

          Isuzu  Truck, Inc. v. Roberts  (In re Roberts),  82 B.R. 179, 184
          __________________    _______   _____________

          (Bankr.  D.  Mass.  1987).   And  since  "subsequent  conduct may

          reflect back  to the promisor's  state of  mind and  thus may  be

          considered in ascertaining whether  there was fraudulent  intent"

          at  the  time the  promise was  made,  proper application  of the

          "totality"   test  in   the   instant   context  often   warrants

          consideration  of post-transaction  conduct and  consequences, as

          well as pre-transaction conduct  and contemporaneous events.  See
                                                                        ___

          Krenowsky v. Haining (In  re Haining), 119 B.R. 460,  464 (Bankr.
          _________    _______  ______________

          D. Del. 1990); cf.  United States v. Rodriguez, 858 F.2d 809, 816
                         __   _____________    _________

          (1st  Cir. 1988) ("later events  often may shed  light on earlier

          motivations").   In  sum, the  bankruptcy court  ruling excluding

          Busconi's relevant  post-closing conduct constituted an  abuse of

          discretion.

                    Williamson   must   also   show,  however,   that   the

          evidentiary ruling adversely  affected his "substantial  rights."

          See Fed.  R. Bankr. P. 9005, 9017  (incorporating Fed. R. Civ. P.
          ___

          61; Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)).   At a minimum, Williamson would  need

          to demonstrate clear  error in the  ultimate assessment that  the

          testimony given by Busconi  was more credible than that  given by

          Williamson.  In  light of all the evidence in  the record, we are

                              
          ____________________

          standard.  See United  States v. Cotto-Aponte, 30 F.3d  4, 6 (1st
                     ___ ______________    ____________
          Cir. 1994).

                                          3

          not  persuaded that  the  challenged  judgment was  substantially

          influenced by the erroneous evidentiary  ruling.  See Lubanski v.
                                                            ___ ________

          Coleco Indus., Inc.,  929 F.2d 42, 46 (1st Cir.  1991).  As there
          ___________________

          was no  clear  error  in the  bankruptcy  court's  findings,  the

          district court  judgment  is affirmed.   The  parties shall  bear
                                       affirmed    The  parties shall  bear
                                       ________    ___  _______ _____  ____

          their own costs.
          their own costs.
          _____ ___ _____

                                          4