Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 70A05-1706-EU-1442 | December 13, 2017 Page 1 of 14

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Dana M. Eberle-Peay

McNeely Stephenson

New Albany, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Michael C. Cooley

Eric N. Allen

Allen Wellman McNew

Harvey, LLP

Greenfield, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Childress Cattle, LLC,

Appellant-Claimant,

v.

The Estate of Roger F. Cain,

Christie Cain, Personal 

Representative,

Appellee-Respondent

December 13, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

70A05-1706-EU-1442

Appeal from the Rush Superior 

Court

The Honorable Brian D. Hill, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

70D01-1602-EU-5

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 70A05-1706-EU-1442 | December 13, 2017 Page 2 of 14

[1] Childress Cattle, LLC (Childress Cattle), filed a claim against the Estate of 

Roger F. Cain (the Estate), alleging that Roger Cain’s business, R&C Cain 

Farms (Cain Farms) owed it money. The trial court disallowed Childress 

Cattle’s claim. Childress Cattle appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in 

excluding certain evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts

[2] Roger Cain (Roger) was the sole proprietor of Cain Farms. Childress Cattle is a 

cattle broker located in Kentucky and owned by James Childress (James) and 

Bonnie Childress (Bonnie). Roger occasionally purchased cattle from Childress 

Cattle. Each purchase was separate and distinct and was conducted verbally by 

telephone. Childress Cattle’s records of these transactions consist of undated 

handwritten notations on documents from other purchases that Childress Cattle 

made from other brokers and stockyards. 

[3] On January 13, 2016, Roger died. On February 23, 2016, the Estate was 

opened, and his widow, Christie Cain (Christie), was appointed personal 

representative. On April 5, 2016, Childress Cattle filed a claim against the 

Estate for $217,770.37 as recovery of payment for certain cattle that Roger had 

allegedly ordered and that were allegedly delivered to Cain Farms sometime 

before Roger’s death. On April 21, 2016, the Estate disallowed the claim. On 

November 17, 2016, Childress Cattle amended its claim to the amount of 

$294,631.98.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 70A05-1706-EU-1442 | December 13, 2017 Page 3 of 14

[4] A hearing took place on April 17, 2017. The Estate objected to the testimony of 

James and Bonnie, arguing that they were incompetent to testify under 

Indiana’s Dead Man’s Statute.1 The Estate also objected to the admission of 

Childress Cattle’s invoices to Roger, arguing that the invoices required context 

to interpret, which could be provided only by the testimony that was barred 

under the Dead Man’s Statute.

[5] The trial court did not allow James and Bonnie to testify, finding that they were 

incompetent under the Dead Man’s Statute, and did not admit the invoices into 

evidence, finding that the testimony of James and Bonnie was necessary to 

establish a foundation for such evidence and that they would continue to be 

incompetent witnesses as to the admission of the evidence. The trial court 

allowed five truck drivers to testify on behalf of Childress Cattle regarding 

specific deliveries of cattle they made to Cain Farms for Childress Cattle. The 

trial court also allowed the testimony of an expert witness about standard 

practices in the cattle industry. The trial court admitted Childress Cattle’s 

exhibits of trucking invoices, veterinary testing records, and some checks that 

Childress Cattle had received as payment from Cain Farms.

[6] On May 30, 2017, the trial court disallowed Childress Cattle’s claim, finding

that it did not prove that it had not been paid in full. The trial court provided 

that James and Bonnie could make offers of proof as to their testimony and 

 

1

Ind. Code § 34-45-2-4.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 70A05-1706-EU-1442 | December 13, 2017 Page 4 of 14

business records either by affidavit or testimony in open court. On June 22, 

2017, Childress Cattle filed two offers of proof, one by James and one by 

Bonnie. Childress Cattle now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Childress Cattle argues that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of 

James and Bonnie and in excluding Childress Cattle’s invoices as evidence.

I. Dead Man’s Statute

[8] Indiana’s Dead Man’s Statute provides in relevant part:

(a) This section applies to suits or proceedings:

(1) in which an executor or administrator is a party;

(2) involving matters that occurred during the lifetime of 

the decedent; and

(3) where a judgment or allowance may be made or 

rendered for or against the estate represented by the 

executor or administrator.

***

(c) This section does not apply to a custodian or other qualified 

witness to the extent the witness seeks to introduce evidence that 

is otherwise admissible under Indiana Rule of Evidence 803(6).

(d) . . . [A] person:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 70A05-1706-EU-1442 | December 13, 2017 Page 5 of 14

(1) who is a necessary party to the issue or record; and

(2) whose interest is adverse to the estate;

is not a competent witness as to matters against the estate.

I.C. § 34-45-2-4. 

[9] The Dead Man’s Statute establishes as a matter of legislative policy that 

claimants to the estate of a deceased person should not be permitted to present a 

court with their version of their dealings with the decedent. In re Estate of 

Rickert, 934 N.E.2d 726, 731 (Ind. 2010). Our Court has explained that

Generally, when an executor or administrator of an estate is one 

party, the adverse parties are not competent to testify about 

transactions that took place during the lifetime of the decedent. 

Furthermore, the general purpose of the statutes is to protect 

decedents’ estates from spurious claims. The Dead Man’s

Statutes guard against false testimony by a survivor by 

establishing a rule of mutuality, wherein the lips of the surviving 

party are closed by law when the lips of the other party are closed 

by death. 

We have held that the Dead Man’s Statutes apply to all cases in 

which a judgment may result for or against the estate, 

notwithstanding the parties’ positions as plaintiff or defendant. 

In addition, neither the express language of the statutes nor 

accepted concepts of fairness should preclude application of the 

statutes so long as no statements made by the decedent are 

admitted through depositions or public records made during his 

life.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 70A05-1706-EU-1442 | December 13, 2017 Page 6 of 14

J.M. Corp. v. Roberson, 749 N.E.2d 567, 571 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (internal 

citations omitted).

II. Testimony of James and Bonnie

Childress Cattle first argues that the trial court erred by precluding Bonnie from 

testifying about conversations that took place with Christie after Roger’s death. 

Where the trial court rules on witness competency, the ruling will be reversed 

only when the ruling is against the logic and effect of the facts and 

circumstances before the trial court. Roberson, 749 N.E.2d at 571.

[10] Initially, we note that neither party filed an appendix. The purpose of an 

appendix in civil appeals is to present the Court with copies of the parts of the 

record “that are necessary for the Court to decide the issues presented.” Ind.

Appellate Rule 50(A)(1). “The appellant shall file its Appendix on or before the 

date on which the appellant's brief is filed. The appellee shall file its Appendix, 

if any, with its appellee’s brief.” App. R. 49. “Any factual statement shall be 

supported by a citation to the volume and page where it appears in an 

Appendix, and if not contained in an Appendix, to the volume and page it 

appears in the Transcript or exhibits . . . . Any record material cited in an 

appellate brief must be reproduced in an Appendix or the Transcript or 

exhibits.” App. R. 22(C).

[11] Childress Cattle did not file an appendix, instead submitting only the transcript 

of the hearing, the exhibits that the trial court admitted during the hearing, and 

the trial court’s order. Childress Cattle should have filed an appendix that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 70A05-1706-EU-1442 | December 13, 2017 Page 7 of 14

included all pertinent filings, especially the offers of proof that James and 

Bonnie submitted to the trial court and its invoices. Although both parties cite 

the offers of proof, no such documents are in the record. 

[12] We will nonetheless endeavor to address the issue despite the lack of an

appendix and supporting record. According to Childress Cattle, Bonnie is 

prepared to testify about conversations with Christie that took place after 

Roger’s death regarding the overdue balance on Cain Farms’ account in the 

amount of $294,631.98 for the cattle ordered by, delivered to, and accepted by 

Roger on behalf of Cain Farms. Bonnie is also prepared to testify that upon 

Christie’s request, Bonnie faxed additional copies of all relevant invoices to 

Christie to facilitate settlement of the overdue amount. According to the Estate, 

the language of Bonnie’s offer of proof indicates that the conversations with 

Christie took place during Roger’s lifetime; that Bonnie does not allege that she 

had any discussions with Christie after Roger’s death; and that Bonnie does not 

allege that Christie agreed that Roger owed Childress Cattle a balance. 

Childress Cattle does not address the substance of James’s offer of proof. 

[13] Childress Cattle argues that because the conversations to which Bonnie wants 

to testify took place after Roger’s death, the Dead Man’s Statute does not apply 

and cannot preclude her from testifying. But even if Bonnie’s proposed 

testimony is about conversations with Christie that took place after Roger’s 

death, the substance of those conversations involves oral contracts that 

Childress Cattle and Roger may have formed during Roger’s lifetime. In 

essence, Bonnie’s proposed testimony would present the trial court with 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 70A05-1706-EU-1442 | December 13, 2017 Page 8 of 14

Childress Cattle’s version of its dealings with Roger, who cannot testify to his 

version of any oral contracts because his lips are closed by death. This 

proposed testimony, therefore, is precisely what the Dead Man’s Statute aims to 

preclude. 

[14] Childress Cattle also argues that the trial court erred by precluding James and 

Bonnie from testifying about all other matters. Childress Cattle never specifies 

any other proposed testimony but rather states generally that it can establish the 

amount of its claim “with testimony allowed by the Dead Man’s Statute as well 

as with the admission of further evidence.” Appellant’s Br. p. 17. Without

facts about the substance of the proposed testimony on other matters, we 

cannot review whether it would be allowed or precluded under the Dead Man’s 

Statute. Accordingly, Childress Cattle’s argument regarding testimony on other 

matters is unavailing.

[15] In sum, the trial court did not err by excluding the testimony of James and 

Bonnie.

III. The Invoices

[16] Childress Cattle next argues that the trial court erred by excluding its invoices 

as evidence. Specifically, Childress Cattle argues that the Dead Man’s Statute 

allows it to present evidence that is otherwise admissible under Indiana Rule of 

Evidence 803(6).

[17] The Dead Man’s Statute provides that it “does not apply to a custodian or other 

qualified witness to the extent the witness seeks to introduce evidence that is 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 70A05-1706-EU-1442 | December 13, 2017 Page 9 of 14

otherwise admissible under Indiana Rule of Evidence 803(6).” I.C. § 34-45-2-

4(C). Indiana Rule of Evidence 803(6) governs the exception to hearsay 

evidence regarding records of regularly conducted business activity and

provides that the following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay:

(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an 

act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:

(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from 

information transmitted by — someone with knowledge; 

(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly 

conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, 

or calling, whether or not for profit;

(C) making the record was a regular practice of that 

activity; 

(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the 

custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification 

that complies with Rule 902(9) or (10) or with a statute 

permitting certification; and

(E) neither the source of information nor the method or 

circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of 

trustworthiness.

[18] We note again that the failure to file an appendix frustrates our analysis of this 

issue, but we will still consider it. According to Childress Cattle, in Bonnie’s 

offer of proof, Bonnie identified herself as the company’s office manager and 

accountant and stated that she would testify that she maintains the files for each 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 70A05-1706-EU-1442 | December 13, 2017 Page 10 of 14

customer, including for Cain Farms, which contain all relevant invoices, 

identification of the cattle purchased, shipping invoices, and payments received; 

that the records are created in the normal course of business; that she is familiar 

with the transactions recorded; that the records are created at or near the time 

of the recorded events; and that Childress Cattle relies on these records to track 

sales, deliveries, and accounts receivable. 

[19] Childress Cattle asserts that the accuracy of its invoices is supported by 

evidence already admitted, including testimony from five truck drivers

regarding eight occasions in 2015 on which Cain Farms accepted cattle 

delivered from Childress Cattle. But Childress Cattle does not point to any 

testimony from the truck drivers that establishes that the invoices are regularly 

conducted business records under Rule 803(6), nor do we find any. Testimony 

regarding Roger’s veterinary records and Cain Farm’s past payments to 

Childress Cattle is similarly unhelpful in establishing that the invoices are 

records of regularly conducted activity. 

[20] Childress Cattle also contends that the reliability of its invoices would be 

bolstered if the trial court allowed testimony about its invoices for the purchases 

of cattle from the stockyards, including the dates of those purchases, and the 

market price of cattle on and around certain dates. According to Childress 

Cattle, this evidence “conclusively establishes” that cattle was delivered to Cain 

Farms at Childress Cattle’s behest and that Cain Farms paid Childress Cattle 

$380,607.65 as partial payment. Appellant’s Br. p. 15. Yet Childress Cattle 

fails to include in its brief any specific facts that would “conclusively establish” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 70A05-1706-EU-1442 | December 13, 2017 Page 11 of 14

these points, nor can it point to an appendix to support its contentions. 

Further, we fail to see how invoices relating to transactions between Childress 

Cattle and third parties establishes that invoices relating to totally separate and 

distinct transactions between Childress Cattle and Cain Farms are records of 

regularly conducted activity. 

[21] Moreover, although Childress Cattle argues that its invoices “establish the total 

amount of the claim,” it also acknowledges that its invoices “will show that 

some of the payments made by the Estate [to Childress Cattle] match precisely 

to particular invoices, while other payments made by the Estate are clearly 

partial payments toward the total account balance with Childress [Cattle].” Id.

at 19. Without specific facts, the offers of proof, or an appendix to support its 

claim, Childress Cattle is essentially asking this Court to take it at its word, 

regardless of any discrepancies that may exist in the evidence it wants to 

present, that its invoices are records of a regularly conducted activity. As a 

result, we find that the circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness that 

precludes the invoices from meeting the hearsay exception for records of a 

regularly conducted activity. The trial court did not err by not admitting 

Childress Cattle’s invoices as evidence.

[22] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Mathias, J., concurs.

Kirsch, J., concurs with a separate opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 70A05-1706-EU-1442 | December 13, 2017 Page 12 of 14

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Childress Cattle, LLC,

Appellant-Claimant,

v.

The Estate of Roger F. Cain,

Christie Cain, Personal 

Representative

Appellee-Respondent

Court of Appeals Case No.

70A05-1706-EU-1442

Kirsch, Judge, concurring.

[23] I concur, albeit with much reluctance.

[24] The Dead Man’s Statutes have long been criticized by legal scholars, 

practitioners and appellate judges. Today, they remain the law in a small 

minority of states.

[25] The effect of the Dead Man’s Statute is to render interested parties—those 

persons who know more than any other where truth lies--incompetent as 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 70A05-1706-EU-1442 | December 13, 2017 Page 13 of 14

witnesses. As Ed Wallis noted in the Cleveland State Law Review more than 

ten years ago, legal scholars have long called for repeal of the Dead Man’s 

statutes.2 

[26] Professor McCormick labelled the statutes a “blind and brainless” technique, 

noting that while they seek to avoid injustice to one side, they may well create it 

for the other.3 

[27] Dean Wigmore stated that America’s judicial system is based on presuming one 

is innocent until proven guilty, but by their very nature, Dead Man’s statutes 

prevent an entire class of persons from testifying because of an assumption that 

all witnesses are bound to lie when the lips of one are sealed due to death.4 

[28] Finally, as noted several years ago by Michael Simon and William Hennessey 

in their survey of Florida law, “The mere mention of the [Dead Man’s] statute 

is enough to make most practitioners shudder.”5 

 

2 Ed Wallis. “Outdated Form of Evidentiary Law: A Survey of Dead Man’s Statutes and a proposal for 

change, 53 Clev. St. L. Rev. 75 (2005)

3

Id., p. 101

4

Id.

5 Michael Simon and William Hennessey, “Estates, Trusts, and Guardianships: 1998 Survey of Florida Law” 

23 NOVA L. Rev. 119, 145 (1998)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 70A05-1706-EU-1442 | December 13, 2017 Page 14 of 14

[29] It is past time for Indiana to follow the lead of other states and repeal its Dead 

Man Statute.