Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv—00643—RNC Document 13 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 1 of 3 1
1
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT 1 1
1 DISTRICT OF CONNECTI U .
. z 1
IN RE DAVID JUDE PERROTTI ; 1111]} DEC 22 A B UU
11,5. D1_$TR1§,T COURT
CADLEROCK JOINT VENTURE, ;r_.,p, , 1~};1.1§1FU1‘\D·Cl·
and UNITED JOINT VENTURE, : 1
A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, i 1
Creditors/Plaintiff—Appellants, Q ,
v. CASE N0. 3:O3C`\/643 (RNC)
DAVID JUDE PERRoTTI, I
Debtor/Defendant-Appellee. Z _
1
RULINS AND ORDER I
This is the second appeal from a decision of the Bankruptcy
Court (Dabrowski, Chief Judge), granting a discharge to the 1
debtor, David J. Perrotti, over the objection of two creditors, 1
Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. and United Joint Venture, L.P. 1
("the creditors"), who contend that Perrotti is guilty of
defrauding them.l The previous appeal, familiarity with which is 1
assumed, resulted in a remand for clarification of Chief Judge
Dabrowski's assessment of the credibility of the testimony of
Perrotti's spouse, Patricia. In keeping with the narrow scope of 1
the remand, Chief Judge Dabrowski issued a memorandum stating I
explicitly that he finds Patricia's testimony credible in all
material respects. On this appeal, the creditors renew their
argument that Perrotti's denials of fraudulent intent must be _
——-—— 1
1 This appeal was transferred to me from Judge Covello’s
docket on December 3.
1



V Case 3:03-cv—00643—RNC Document 13 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 2 of 3
i
% rejected as a matter of law. That argument is not properly before i
‘ me, as Perrotti correctly points out. With regard to the one I
r issue that is properly before me, the creditors contend that i
{ Chief Judge Dabrowski clearly erred in crediting Patricia's
i testimony. I disagree. K
The creditors attack Patricia's testimony that the cash she i
received from Perrotti during the relevant time period served to -
reimburse her for his share of their joint living expenses. They
contend that her testimony must be rejected because Perrotti V
listed his parent's address on his 1997 tax return and other i
documents. Patricia did not testify that Perrotti never used his I
parent's address; rather, she testified that the two of them
lived together "more or less."2
The creditors contend that Patricia's testimony concerning W
the expense—sharing arrangement is contradicted by the amount of Q
Perrotti's net pay. I fail to see a contradiction. Patricia
testified that she did not know exactly how much money Perrotti 2
retained from his net pay but assumed it was enough to cover his
own living expenses and estimated the amount at $50 or $60 per
week. Even assuming Perrotti kept substantially more, it does i
not necessarily follow that Patricia testified falsely. i
Because Patricia's testimony was plausible and not
necessarily contradicted by extrinsic evidence, Chief Judge
Dabrowski’s credibility determination must be sustained. §eg
-———-——-—- I
2 Creditors' counsel did not ask Patricia what she meant by Q
this. (Ex. 4, pp. 68-69)
_ _,,,, R

I
1
‘ Case 3:03-cv—00643—RNC Document 13 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 3 of 3 J
i Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 475 (1985).
J
I Accordingly, the decision of the Bankruptcy Court is hereby 9
% affirmed. So ordered. K
y Dated at Hartford, Connecticut this 20th day of December _ i
• I yy _ /"ii-l I
`Robert N. Chatiggyj an l U
United States District Judge
i
1