144 N.E.3d
1 opinion
The trial court did not err in failing to allow testimony from appellant's experts about the age of mold that was present in property that appellees sold to appellants. While the experts were qualified to discuss mold, and should have been allowed to identify mold on parts of the house other than the interior wall cavities, that was not the relevant issue. The issue was when the mold was present, which might have supported an inference that appellees had actual knowledge of the mold. However, appellant failed to make an appropriate proffer of the experts' testimony. Even if this were otherwise, appellant's experts were unable to give any specific testimony about when mold might have been present, so any potential error would have been irrelevant and harmless. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in allowing lay opinion testimony from a fact witness. Judgment affirmed.
