- 30 -
We find that Alice Berger read and adopted the statements
contained in Exhibits 46-AT, 57, and 58. Therefore, they are
party admissions and not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(B).
Issue 1(c). Exhibit 59, Letter From Alice Berger's Divorce
Counsel to Judge Fundler
Alice Berger asserts that a letter dated April 13, 1987,
from Dr. Forgotson to Judge Fundler is hearsay and objects to its
use to prove that she was an owner of the Woodbine business.
Respondent asserts that it is a party admission. See Fed. R.
Evid. 801(d)(2). We agree with respondent.
Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that
A statement is not hearsay if--* * * (2) Admission by
party-opponent.--The statement is offered against a
party and is * * * (C) a statement by a person
authorized by * * * [him] to make a statement
concerning the subject * * * .
On March 13, 1987, in the case of Berger v. Berger, No. FM-
09545-87 (N.J. Super.), Judge Fundler ordered Howard Berger to
make certain payments to Alice Berger. On April 13, 1987, Dr.
Forgotson, acting as Alice Berger's counsel in the divorce
proceeding, sent Judge Fundler the April 13 letter to clarify his
March 13 order. In the April 13 letter, Dr. Forgotson stated
that "Mrs. Berger owns one half interest in the Woodbine Cemetary
[sic] business. Any sums payable by the cemetary [sic] are
therefore coming out of her share of the business as well."
We find that Dr. Forgotson's statements in the letter to
Judge Fundler were authorized by Alice Berger; therefore they are
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011