Martin v. Olson
Citations
- 226 Conn. App. 392
Syllabus
The plaintiff appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court rendered for the defendant on his claims of, inter alia, breach of contract. The plaintiff had been living with his grandfather, R, for approximately thirteen years prior to R's death, during which time he provided certain caregiving services to R. After R's death, the defendant was appointed the executor of R's estate. The plaintiff sent a claim to the defendant for compensation for his caregiving services, which the defendant rejected by filing a return of claims with the Probate Court and sending the return to the plaintiff in July, 2020. The plaintiff commenced this action in December, 2020, and the defendant raised several special defenses including, inter alia, that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations (§ 45a-363) because he did not commence this action within 120 days of receiving the return of claims. Held: 1. The plaintiff could not prevail on his claim that the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding the effect of the return of claims and the defendant's statute of limitations defense; this court concluded that, even if it assumed that the jury instruction should have been more detailed, any error arising from the jury instructions was harmless and did not affect the verdict, as the trial court instructed the jury to answer the interrogatories in the order in which they were presented on the jury form, and the jury found that the plaintiff had failed to prove an essential element of each of his claims prior to addressing the defen- dant's special defense. 2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence testimony regarding the fair rental value of R's real property and evidence of the emotional effect of the plaintiff's claims on the defendant and the plaintiff's mother: the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant's testimony regarding the fair rental value of the property constituted hearsay, as the defend
Judges: Alvord; Cradle; Westbrook
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.