Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2251 (2026)

Limitations on testimony in actions by or against personal representatives, administrators, guardians or conservators

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In an action by or against personal representatives, administrators, guardians or conservators in which judgment may be given for or against them as such, neither party shall be allowed to testify against the other as to any transaction with or statement by the testator, intestate or ward unless called to testify thereto by the opposite party, or required to testify thereto by the court. The provisions of this section shall extend to and include all actions by or against the heirs, devisees, legatees or legal representatives of a decedent arising out of any transaction with the decedent.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases, 1956–2018 · leading case: Goff v. Guyton, 346 P.2d 286 (Ariz. 1959).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Goff v. Guyton, 346 P.2d 286 (Ariz. 1959). · cites it 14× “Plaintiff appeals, contending that the court erred in permitting the Guytons to testify to transactions and conversations with decedent in violation of the provisions of Section 12-2251, A.R.S., and that there was insufficient evidence to legally authorize the decision of the…”
Est. of Page v. Litzenburg, 865 P.2d 128 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “section 12-2251 (“the Dead Man’s Statute”); (4) Whether Litzenburg’s testimony amounted to “clear and convincing” evidence on which a claim against the estate could be based; and (5) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying O’Dea’s motion for new trial or his…”
Fridena v. Evans, 622 P.2d 463 (Ariz. 1980). · cites it 3× “Appellants’ objections to the testimony were based on the Arizona Dead Man’s Statute, A.R.S. § 12-2251, which provides: “§ 12-2251.”
Cachenos v. Baumann, 544 P.2d 1103 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 8× “While this matter arose under cross motions for summary judgment, the parties stipulated that the trial court, in determining whether there were any disputed issues of material fact should also determine the applicability of A.R.S. § 12-2251 to the facts and the admissibility of…”
Condos v. Felder, 377 P.2d 305 (Ariz. 1962). · cites it 4× “As to the application of the Arizona “Dead Man” statute, A.R.S. § 12-2251, we point out that its application is discre *372 tionary with the trial judge, and he can permit testimony regarding conversations ■and transactions with the deceased whenever he feels justice will be…”
Mahan v. First Nat. Bank of Arizona, 677 P.2d 301 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “Two issues are presented in this appeal: (1) whether appellant is precluded by A.R.S. § 12-2251 (the deadman's statute) from testifying concerning his conversations with the decedent relating to an oral contract entered into with decedent; and (2) whether the trial court erred…”
Troutman v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona, 826 P.2d 810 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “”) section 12-2251. That statute provides: In an action by or against personal representatives, administrators, guardians or conservators in which judgment may be given for or against them.”
In Re Est. of MacDonald, 417 P.2d 728 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966). · cites it 4× “The provisions of this section shall extend to and include all actions by or against the heirs, devisees, legatees, or legal representatives of a decedent arising out of any transaction with the decedent.”
G & S Investments v. Belman, 700 P.2d 1358 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “THE DEAD MAN STATUTE Appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony contrary to our dead man statute, A.R.S. § 12-2251, which provides that in a suit by or against the executor or administrator of an estate or guardian of an incompetent, neither party…”
Fish v. Indus. Comm'n, 472 P.2d 97 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “Under specified circumstances A.R.S. § 12-2251 places restrictions on the testimony of executors, administrators and guardians.”
Matter of Est. of Musgrove, 696 P.2d 720 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “The estate has raised two issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of Brown in the face of the Dead Man's Statute, A.”
Bostwick v. Jasin, 821 P.2d 282 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-2251 provides that a party cannot testify about a transaction with or statement by a decedent “unless [the party is] called to testify thereto by the opposite par-ty____” Because Charles called Barbara to testify on cross-examination about the transaction with Hazel,…”
Show all 27 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.