Estate of Suzanne C. Pruitt - Page 10




                                       - 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