- 10 -
based on the parol evidence rule and directed the parties to
address the issue on brief. On brief, respondent contended that
petitioner is attempting to expand the powers specifically
granted to Ms. Thompson through the use of oral testimony, which
is prohibited by the parol evidence rule. Prior to trial and on
brief, respondent raised another general objection to the
testimony, contending it was inadmissible hearsay.
A. Respondent’s Hearsay Objection
On brief, respondent argued that any third-party testimony
regarding decedent’s intent is inadmissible because it is offered
to prove the truth of the matter asserted; namely, that decedent
intended to include a power to make gifts in each of the
three powers of attorney. Petitioner responded that the
testimony is admissible under rules 803(3) and 807 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence. Assuming arguendo that the witnesses’
testimony as to decedent’s intent is hearsay in the first
instance,8 we hold that the testimony is admissible under the
8On brief, respondent made the following arguments that
certain parts of the witnesses’ testimony constituted
inadmissible hearsay: (1) “At trial, the decedent’s attorney [Mr.
Walker] testified that, with respect to the powers of attorney,
he had discussions with the decedent that the powers allowed the
decedent’s daughter to do anything that the decedent could do
* * *. Any statements by the attorney which relate to this
belief by the decedent, including an implied intent to make gifts
are inadmissible hearsay under FRE 803(3).” (2) “The same
rationale and result [as in (1) above] applies to the overall
testimony of the decedent’s daughter [Ms. Thompson].” (3) “In the
present case, it is respondent’s position that the testimony of
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011