## Facts

- Miller entered into a lease-purchase agreement with a property owner who later died.
- A written modification to the lease-purchase agreement purportedly bore the decedent’s signature.
- After the decedent’s death, NBD Bank, N.A. acted in a representative capacity for the decedent’s estate.
- Miller asserted a claim against the estate based on the alleged modification and sought to enforce rights under it.
- The estate, through the bank, disputed the authenticity of the decedent’s signature on the modification.
- To prove the modification, Miller attempted to testify about transactions, acts, and conversations with the decedent concerning the agreement and its alleged modification.
- The trial court ruled for the estate, limiting or excluding Miller’s testimony under Indiana’s Dead Man’s Statute.

## Issues

1. Whether Indiana’s Dead Man’s Statute rendered Miller, an adverse claimant and necessary party, incompetent to testify against the estate about transactions, acts, or conversations with the decedent regarding the lease-purchase agreement and its alleged modification.
2. Whether, with Miller’s testimony barred, the judgment for the estate should be affirmed.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment for NBD Bank, N.A., representing the estate.
- It held the Dead Man’s Statute applied because the case involved an estate representative as a party, concerned matters occurring during the decedent’s lifetime, and could result in a judgment affecting the estate.
- It further held Miller was a necessary party with an interest adverse to the estate and therefore was not a competent witness to testify against the estate about the relevant lifetime dealings with the decedent.
- Because Miller could not use his own barred testimony to authenticate or establish the decedent’s assent to the modification, his claim failed for lack of admissible proof.

## Legal Principles

- In a proceeding where an executor, administrator, or estate representative is a party and the dispute concerns matters occurring during the decedent’s lifetime, a necessary party whose interest is adverse to the estate is not a competent witness to testify against the estate about transactions, acts, or conversations with the decedent.
- The Dead Man’s Statute operates as a rule of witness competency, permitting exclusion of covered testimony rather than merely reducing its weight.
- The statute’s objectives include preventing one-sided testimony about dealings with a person who cannot respond and reducing the risk of fraudulent claims against estates.

## Conclusion

The court applied Indiana’s Dead Man’s Statute to bar an adverse claimant’s testimony about his lifetime dealings with a decedent, leaving insufficient admissible evidence to prove a disputed contract modification and requiring affirmance of judgment for the estate’s representative.


Miller v. NBD Bank, N.A., 701 N.E.2d 282 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)