Crestmark v. Laplante

7ermont Superior Court
Filed 02/07/25
Rutland nit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Rutland Unit Case No. 23-CV-03942
83 Center St
Rutland VT 05701
802-775-4394
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Crestmark, Inc. v. ames Laplante et al

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Title: Motion in Limine (Motion: 11)
Filer: Kevin E. Brown
Filed Date: December 16, 2024

The motion is GRANTED.

Defendant filed a motion in limine on December 16, 2024 seeking to preclude Plaintiff from
eliciting evidence of prior unpaid debt. Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 27, 2024. The
court took oral arguments from the parties on this motion on February 6, 2025. At that hearing,
Plaintiff's counsel confirmed he would be seeking to introduce this evidence during cross
examination pursuant to V.R.E. 608(b) as evidence of Defendant's untruthfulness.

Pursuant to Rule 608(b):

Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or
supporting his credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in Rule 609,
may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the
court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-
examination of the witness (1) concerning his character for truthfulness or
untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of
another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant's past history of unpaid debt demonstrates his character for
untruthfulness. The court disagrees. As noted by the Vermont Supreme Court, "a line is to be
drawn; for the mere failure, (for example) to pay a specific debt may be open to so many other
explanations that a total lack of means
* * * that it would have no
appreciable probative value."
Horicon v. Langlois' Est., 115 Vt. 470, 474, 66 A.2d 16, 19 (1949). There are many reasons a person
does not pay a debt and the court cannot conclude that simply not paying a debt constitutes a
character for untruthfulness. This is not a case where the Plaintiff 1s alleging that Defendant made
false statements about this prior debt or used fraud to obtain the debts in the first place, which
could be relevant. See eg. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No.
LL001HI0300520 v. Vreeken, 133 Hawai'i 449 (Ct. App. 2014) ("The evidence that Wengler had a
bankruptcy petition dismissed due to his failure to provide 'complete and truthful information' and

Entry Regarding Motion Page 1 of 2
23-CV-03942 Crestmark, Inc. v. James Laplante et al
that a bankruptcy court had found that he had incurred debts through false pretenses,
misrepresentations, or fraud is probative of Wengler's character for untruthfulness..”). Here,
Plaintiff simply argues the fact that Defendant has prior unpaid debts is and of itself enough to
demonstrate his character for untruthfulness. The link between unpaid debts and truthfulness is too
tenuous to demonstrate a character of untruthfulness.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is precluded from inquiring into Defendant’s prior
unpaid debt during cross-examination unless the debt itself was the result of fraud or the Defendant
lied about the unpaid debt in some capacity.

Electronically signed on February 7, 2025 pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

__________________________
Alexander N. Burke
Superior Court Judge

Entry Regarding Motion Page 2 of 2
23-CV-03942 Crestmark, Inc. v. James Laplante et al