AC46483 - Martin v. Olson (“The plaintiff, Daniel A. Martin, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, Christopher R. Olson, executor of the estate of Robert K. Olson (decedent). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) instructed the jury regarding the defendant’s statute of limitations defense, (2) admitted into evidence certain testimony, and (3) permitted the defendant to present the testimony of undisclosed witnesses during his case-in-chief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”

“The plaintiff brought causes of action sounding in breach of express oral contract, breach of implied-in-fact contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and ‘breach of promise to nominate as beneficiary.’ In support of these claims, the plaintiff testified at trial that he would have yearly discussions with the decedent during which the decedent promised to compensate the plaintiff for providing him with caregiving services. The court reasonably could have determined that the testimony provided by the defendant and the plaintiff’s mother regarding their reactions to the plaintiff’s claim against the decedent’s estate was relevant because it was offered to assist the jury in determining whether it found credible the plaintiff’s testimony that the decedent promised to compensate the plaintiff for providing caregiver services. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the defendant and the plaintiff’s mother to testify to their reactions to the plaintiff’s claim against the decedent’s estate.)