Opinion ID: 1661231
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The objectors claim Verl Patterson was incompetent to testify on behalf of his wife, the claimant, under the dead man statute which provides:

Text: No party to any action or proceeding,    and no husband or wife of any said party or person, shall be examined as a witness in regard to any personal transaction or communication between such witness and a person at the commencement of such examination deceased,    against the executor, administrator, heir at law    of such deceased person   . Section 622.4, Code 1971. The objection was based on Verl's testimony on voir dire that anytime he was over to his father's house, he was there to help as it appeared he participated in whatever took place. The dead man statute    is not to be enlarged by construction and those whom the statute designates incompetent will be held so only as to the particular kind of testimony clearly forbidden by the statute. Carlson v. Bankers Trust Company (1951), 242 Iowa 1207, 1213, 50 N. W.2d 1, 5; In re Estate of Winslow (1967), 259 Iowa 1316, 1320-1321, 147 N. W.2d 814, 817. It does not render one incompetent to testify as to observations and facts independent of a personal transaction with the deceased. In re Palmer's Estate (1963), 255 Iowa 428, 433, 122 N.W.2d 920, 923, and citations. Here, Verl did not attempt to testify as to any communication indicating an agreement for compensation to his wife. He merely stated what he saw his wife doing for his father. The fact that he helped turn his father over does not bar him from testifying as to these observations.