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 Jag

_______________
___

Smith, Stetler & Arata, P.C. were on brief for appellee.

____________________________

____________________

July 3, 1996
____________________
____________________

*Of the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

CYR,
CYR,

Circuit Judge.
Circuit Judge.
______________

Appellant

Alan

D.

Williamson

challenges a bankruptcy court ruling excluding evidence probative

of

the chapter

intent

to

debtor-appellee Lewis

defraud

transaction.

In

Williamson

due course

proceeding in the bankruptcy

chapter 7

by

substantial

putative

real

Williamson commenced

estate

an adversary

court to except his claim

from the

discharge on the ground that the debt had been induced

fraud.

See
___

523(a)(2)(A)

record,

in

J. Busconi's

we

discretion

Bankruptcy Code

(1994).

conclude

Following

that

by excluding

the

the

523(a)(2)(A), 11

careful review

bankruptcy

of the

court

proffered evidence,

U.S.C.

entire

abused

its

but that

the

error did not affect substantial rights.

At the bench trial, Williamson unsuccessfully attempted

to introduce

conduct,

evidence as to various

subsequent

transaction,

from

inferred that

to

which

bankruptcy

after hearing

judge expressly

and

ruled

closing

of

factfinder

their

the

real

reasonably

intended to pay

the testimony

estate

have

at the

as irrelevant.

of both

credited Busconi's

could

the note

The evidence was excluded

that Williamson had failed

intent,

Busconi had not

time it was executed.

Nonetheless,

the

events, including Busconi's

parties, the

testimony, found

to establish the requisite fraudulent

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

bankruptcy

court

error.
are

Id.
__

subject

Evidentiary rulings
to

the

"abuse

of

by

the

discretion"

As

intent

direct evidence

normally

circumstances.

is

determined

D.

seldom

from

available,

the

fraudulent

totality

of

the

Charlie Kelton's Pontiac, Cadillac, Oldsmobile &

_________________________________________________

Isuzu Truck, Inc. v. Roberts

__________________
_______

(Bankr.

is

Mass.

1987).

(In re Roberts),
_____________

And

since

82 B.R. 179, 184

"subsequent

conduct may

reflect back

to the promisor's

state of

considered in ascertaining whether

at

the

time the

"totality"

promise was

test

consideration

in

the

instant

well as pre-transaction conduct

proper application

context

conduct and

often

(1st

In

Busconi's relevant

discretion.

intent"

of the

warrants

and contemporaneous events.

See
___

464 (Bankr.

United States v. Rodriguez, 858 F.2d 809, 816

_____________
_________

Cir. 1988) ("later events

motivations").

be

consequences, as

Krenowsky v. Haining (In re Haining), 119 B.R. 460,

_________
_______ ______________

D. Del. 1990); cf.

__

thus may

there was fraudulent

made,

of post-transaction

mind and

sum, the

often may shed

light on earlier

bankruptcy court

ruling excluding

post-closing conduct constituted an

abuse of

Williamson

must

evidentiary ruling adversely

See Fed.
___

also

to demonstrate clear

Williamson.

In

that

the

rights."

(incorporating Fed. R. Civ. P.

At a minimum, Williamson would

error in the

testimony given by Busconi

however,

affected his "substantial

R. Bankr. P. 9005, 9017

61; Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)).

show,

ultimate assessment that

was more credible than that

light of all the evidence in

need

the

given by

the record, we are

____________________

standard.

See United States v. Cotto-Aponte, 30 F.3d

___ ______________
____________

Cir. 1994).

4, 6 (1st

not

persuaded that

the

challenged

judgment was

influenced by the erroneous evidentiary

ruling.

Coleco Indus., Inc.,

___________________

929 F.2d 42, 46 (1st Cir.

was no

in the

clear

error

district court

their own costs.

their own costs.
_____ ___ _____

judgment

bankruptcy

is affirmed.
affirmed
________

court's

The
The
___

substantially

See Lubanski v.
___ ________

1991).

As there

findings,

parties shall
parties shall
_______ _____

the

bear
bear
____