§ 5930. Surviving party as witness, in case of death, mental incapacity, etc.
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, in any civil action or proceeding,
where any party to a thing or contract in action is dead, or has been adjudged a lunatic
and his right thereto or therein has passed, either by his own act or by the act of
the law, to a party on the record who represents his interest in the subject in controversy,
neither any surviving or remaining party to such thing or contract, nor any other
person whose interest shall be adverse to the said right of such deceased or lunatic
party, shall be a competent witness to any matter occurring before the death of said
party or the adjudication of his lunacy, unless the action or proceeding is by or
against the surviving or remaining partners, joint promisors or joint promisees, of
such deceased or lunatic party, and the matter occurred between such surviving or
remaining partners, joint promisors or joint promisees and the other party on the
record, or between such surviving or remaining partners, promisors or promisees and
the person having an interest adverse to them, in which case any person may testify
to such matters; or, unless the action is a possessory action against several defendants,
and one or more of said defendants disclaims of record any title to the premises in
controversy at the time the suit was brought and also pays into court the costs accrued
at the time of his disclaimer, or gives security therefor as the court in its discretion
may direct, in which case such disclaiming defendant shall be a fully competent witness;
or, unless the issue or inquiry be devisavit vel non, or be any other issue or inquiry
respecting the property of a deceased owner, and the controversy is between parties
respectively claiming such property by devolution on the death of such owner, in which
case all persons shall be fully competent witnesses.
(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days)
Cross References. Section 5930 is referred to in sections 5931, 5932 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
In Re: B. Fiedler, Appeal of: E. Fiedler, 132 A.3d 1010 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 4× “2d 141 (2009), and as violative of the Pennsylvania Dead Man’s Statute,, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5930 (“Dead Man’s Act”). The orphans’ court denied the motion in limine on September 12, 2012.”
Toogood v. Rogal, 824 A.2d 1140 (Pa. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Stone's estate filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that, pursuant to the Dead Man's Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5930, no adverse testimony could be offered against Dr.”
Armbruster v. Horowitz, 813 A.2d 698 (Pa. 2002).
· cites it 2× “1998) (sole issue on appeal was whether testimony was admitted in violation of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5930); Duquesne Light Co. v.”
Frazer, J. v. McEntire, S., 2021 Pa. Super. 211 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 5× “On appeal, Appellant avers the trial court erred in: (1) applying the Dead Man’s Act1 to ____________________________________________ 1 42 Pa.C.S. § 5930. J-A20036-21 preclude witness testimony about the existence of the cash asset; and (2) granting summary judgment where there…”
In Re Est. of Stauffer, 476 A.2d 354 (Pa. 1984).
· cites it 3× “142, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5930, in order to establish her status as a common law spouse.”
In Re Est. of Hall, 535 A.2d 47 (Pa. 1987).
· cites it 2× “During the course of the trial or “hearing” on these claims before Judge Ross, Appellants repeatedly argued that the Dead Man’s Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5930, barred testimony against Mr.”
Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, 714 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 1998).
· cites it 2× “[7] The Dead Man's Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5930, presented a significant problem in this respect.”
In Re: Est. of Caruso, P., Appeal of: Caruso, G., 176 A.3d 346 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “• The Dead Man’s Statute is codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5930, and provides in pertinent part: Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, in any civil action or proceeding, where any party to a thing or contract in action is dead, or has been adjudged a lunatic and his right…”
Schroeder v. Jaquiss, 861 A.2d 885 (Pa. 2004).
· cites it 2× “In this appeal, we consider whether the Superior Court correctly concluded that a decedent’s representative did not waive the Dead Man’s Act (“Dead Man’s Act” or “Act”), 42 Pa.C.S. § 5930, by not raising the Act by objection at the discovery depositions of adverse parties.”
Wertz v. Chapman Twp., 709 A.2d 428 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Wertz argues that the trial court erred in excluding the proffered testimony on the basis of the Dead Man's Rule, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5930. We note that the defendants do not defend the correctness of the trial court's ruling with respect to the issue of the Dead Man's Rule.”
Gibbs v. Herman, 714 A.2d 432 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Gratz’s testimony was admitted in violation of the Dead Man’s Rule, codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5930. Section 5930 of the Judicial Code provides, in pertinent part: [I]n any civil action or proceeding, where any party to a thing or contract in action is dead, or has been adjudged a…”
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.