Opinion ID: 1986023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the Trial Court Err in Allowing Jane Ann to Testify by Telephone?

Text: At the hearing, Dwight sought to have Jane Ann testify by telephone. The executor objected, claiming that the witness should testify in person to enable the court to judge the demeanor of the witness. Notwithstanding this objection, the court permitted Jane Ann to be questioned over the telephone. We review this evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. See Dettmann v. Kruckenberg, 613 N.W.2d 238, 249 (Iowa 2000); Schlader v. Interstate Power Co., 591 N.W.2d 10, 11 (Iowa 1999). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. State v. Maghee, 573 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 1997). A ground or reason is untenable when it is not supported by substantial evidence or when it is based on an erroneous application of the law. Graber v. City of Ankeny, 616 N.W.2d 633, 638 (Iowa 2000). In determining the allowable forms of evidence, we must first classify the action being tried. Civil actions are either ordinary (at law) or equitable. See Iowa Code § 611.3 (1997); Smith v. ADM Feed Corp., 456 N.W.2d 378, 387 (Iowa 1990) (Carter, J., dissenting). The present action is an equitable proceeding. See In re Estate of Todd, 585 N.W.2d 273, 275 (Iowa 1998) (holding that all matters triable in probate other than actions to set aside a will are tried by the probate court as a proceeding in equity (citing Iowa Code § 633.33 (1995))). In actions at law, the case must be tried upon oral evidence taken in open court.  Iowa Code § 624.1 (emphasis added); see In re Gust, 345 N.W.2d 42, 44 (N.D.1984) (interpreting requirement that testimony of witnesses shall be taken orally in open court to mean that a witness testifying in a case must be present in court so that the trier of fact may observe the demeanor of the witness). This requirement is relaxed in equitable actions where the court may allow a witness to testify by deposition. See Iowa Code § 624.3. The legislature has also authorized telephone testimony in specified situations. See, e.g., id. §§ 237.20(1)( d ) (allowing testimony by a tape recorded telephone call in proceedings before local citizen foster care review boards), 252K.316(6) (providing for [s]pecial rules of evidence and procedure in proceedings under Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, including the allowance of witness testimony by telephone), 598B.111 (2001) (allowing an individual residing in another state to be deposed or to testify by telephone, audiovisual means, or other electronic means in child custody proceeding subject to Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act). There is no rule or statutory provision, however, that would allow witnesses to testify telephonically in equitable proceedings in general. See In re Bieganowski, 520 N.W.2d 525, 528 (Minn.Ct.App.1994) (holding that rule allowing evidence to be submitted by deposition did not authorize submission of telephone testimony). Given this statutory framework, the trial court had no authority to permit Jane Ann to testify by telephone over the objection of the executor. [2] Therefore, the court's ruling permitting such testimony was based on an erroneous application of the law and constituted an abuse of discretion. See id. (holding that trial court abused its discretion in allowing witness to testify by telephone in absence of rule or statute permitting such testimony as a substitute for oral testimony in open court). Having held that Jane Ann's testimony should not have been allowed, we will address the remaining issues in this case without consideration of her testimony, with one minor exception noted later.