EvidenceProf Blog

Editor: Colin Miller
Univ. of South Carolina School of Law

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

The Second of Kentucky's Three Privity-Based Hearsay Exclusions

Kentucky Rule of Evidence 801A(c)(2) reads as follows:

(c) Admission by privity:...

(2) Predecessors in interest. Even though the declarant is available as a witness, when a right, title, or interest in any property or claim asserted by a party to a civil action requires a determination that a right, title, or interest existed in the declarant, evidence of a statement made by the declarant during the time the party now claims the declarant was the holder of the right, title, or interest is not excluded by the hearsay rule when offered against the party if the evidence would be admissible if offered against the declarant in an action involving that right, title, or interest.

This is a straightforward privity exclusion to the rule against hearsay. Imagine, for instance, that Paula sells her home to Dana. Erica thereafter sues Dana, claiming that she has an easement over her property that Dana is failing to honor. There is privity between Paula and Dana because Dana purchased her property. 

So, imagine that Paula made statements to various people about Erica having an easement over her property. Even though Paula is not a party to the litigation, her statements would be admissible under Rule 801A(c)(2).

-CM

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2020/02/the-second-of-kentuckys-three-privity-based-hearsay-exclusions.html

| Permalink

Comments

Post a comment