Opinion ID: 1058769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Dorothy's Understanding

Text: We next consider the LLC's argument that the circuit court erred in allowing Dorothy to testify concerning her understanding of the original purchase of the property. The LLC contends that this testimony was inadmissible because Dorothy did not have personal knowledge of the transaction, and her testimony did not provide a factual basis for its admission. In her brief, Dorothy does not address this assignment of error. Based on our review of the record, we agree with the LLC's argument. Dorothy's testimony regarding her understanding of the original transaction was not based on any personal knowledge of the transaction, or on any information she received that would have provided a basis for such testimony. Instead, her testimony established that she did not learn of the purchase until Herman told her that he had bought a house. Dorothy also confirmed that she did not have any contact with Malcolm at the time the property was purchased, and only spoke with him once in 1963 when she needed his signature for an insurance claim she was filing on the property. She testified that at that time, He just asked why I was there and signed the paper and then gave it back to me. This testimony, considered collectively, demonstrated that Dorothy lacked an opportunity for knowing the intention of the parties at the time the property was purchased, and that she did not have a basis in fact for testifying about her understanding of that transaction. Therefore, we hold that the circuit court erred in permitting her to testify about her purported understanding of the purchase. See 1 Kenneth S. Broun, McCormick on Evidence § 10 (6th ed.2006).