Cleveland Law Library Weblog

Ohio Supreme Court Recommends Safety Upgrades for Cuyahoga Justice Center

The Plain Dealer has reported on Ohio Supreme Court recommendations for significant safety upgrades at the Cuyahoga County Justice Center. The Justice Center, which is next to the jail, houses most of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judges and their courtrooms, as well as Cleveland Municipal Court. The paper suggests the enhancements will cost millions of dollars for additional deputies, screening equipment, locks, security cameras, and other new procedures. Locally, Common Pleas Judge John Russo chairs an ad hoc court security committee that is reviewing the recommendations. The same Ohio Supreme Court representatives who visited the Justice Center over the summer also visited the County Courthouse (which houses Cuyahoga's domestic relations, probate and appellate court judges and courtrooms), but we have not yet seen the report to determine whether it makes any recommendations for the Courthouse. See our prior post on the site visit, where we also provided a link to the current Courthouse Security Policy and Procedures Plan.

Ohio Supreme Court Issues Proposed Changes to Probate Forms

The Ohio Supreme Court has announced proposed changes to Ohio's Standard Probate Forms (SPFs). Chief among the proposed changes are 1) an increase in the funeral and burial expense credit on SPF 5.10, 2) an allowance for transfers of real property under a summary release (SPF 12.0), and 3) the removal of social security information from SPF 17.0 (Application for Appointment of Guardian of an Alleged Incompetent). Other proposed changes are only as to form or required information, not substantive content. The Ohio Supreme Court provides a Rule Amendment search at the following link: Rule Amendment Search. Cuyahoga County's Probate Court provides an online gateway to SPFs and fiduciary forms.

Ohio Probate Court Jurisdiction Ceases at Age 18 in Guardianship Case

Last week, the Ohio Supreme Court held in In re Guardianship of Hollins that Probate Court jurisdiction ceases when the ward in a guardianship case turns 18. The Court concluded that reaching the age of majority also terminates a guardian's power over a ward. This decision directly prohibited the Cuyahoga County Probate Court from approving a medical malpractice settlement because the ward turned 18 two (2) days before the Probate Court's order was journalized. Click here to read the Ohio Supreme Court's press release.

Ohio Suprem Court Security Visits Cuyahoga County Courthouse

Recently, at the request of some local judges, a representative from the Ohio Supreme Court Office of Court Security visited the Cuyahoga County Courthouse to evaluate current security procedures, evacuation plans, and emergency preparedness plans. In addition to meeting with local judges and interviewing some court and law library administrative staff, the representative reviewed the new Courthouse security system and current emergency plans for employees and visitors to the building. The Courthouse currently operates under a Security Policy and Procedures Plan that was amended on November 8, 2005 (Download _0726123843_001.pdf) and issued by Appellate Judge Patricia Ann Blackmon. That plan covers the Eighth District Court of Appeals, various courtrooms and offices for the Court of Common Pleas General, Probate and Domestic Relations Divisions. Presumably, the Supreme Court will issue a report on its representative's visit to all of the offices in the building.

Does Savings Statute Apply to Probate Matters?

The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday concerning whether the savings statute applies to probate matters.  The savings statute, ORC 2305.19, allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss a case without prejudice and re-file it one year after dismissal, even if the original statute of limitations has run. 

The lawsuit involves a claim by Vitantonio Inc. against the estate of shareholder William Vitantonio, pursuant to ORC 2117.12.  After the decedent's death, the owners of Vitantonio, Inc. and Wickliffe Floral, Inc. entered into a stock purchase agreement.  Decedant was a majority shareholder in Wickliffe Floral and a minority shareholder in Vitantonio Inc.  Vitantonio Inc. tendered an offer of payment to the estate in return for the shares, but the executor refused to give up the shares. Vitantonio Inc. filed suit against Gary Baxter, the executor of William Vitantonio's estate, claiming malfeasance, nonfeasance negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.  This suit was filed within the two month statutory time limit.  The plaintiffs dismissed the claim 19 months after it was filed, and subsequently refiled the claim within one year of dismissal.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals relied upon Allen v. McBride (2004), 105 Ohio St.3d 21, 2004-Ohio-7112, which held that the saving statute DOES apply to will contests.  See Vitantonio v. Baxter , Lake App. No. 2005-L-004, 2006-Ohio-1685.  The executor, Gary Baxter, asserts that after the McBride decision, the legislature amended the law to bar the use of the savings statute in will contest proceedings.  See 126th General Assembly, HB 144, effective June 15, 2006.  Vitantonio Inc. counters that HB 144 only applies to will contests, not the type of legal claims at hand.  Baxter also argues that the short deadlines in probate laws, such as ORC 2117.12, show a legislative intent to promptly distribute a decedent's assets, and thus the legislature's intent is to disallow use of the savings statute. 

The case is Vitantonio Inc  v.  Baxter, Ohio Supreme Court Case  No. 2006-0952.  Documents can be viewed at the Ohio Supreme Court Online Docket. 

See Does ‘Saving Statute’ Allow Refiling of Court Challenge to Rejected Claim Against Estate?, Ohio Suprme Court Oral Argument Previews. 

Posted by Sue Altmeyer

New Article on Ohio Trust Code

The Ohio Trust Code Analysis by Michael Bonasera, The Ohio Trust & Estate Blog, Apr. 28, 2007 points out a helpful article on Ohio's new Trust Code.  The article is An Analysis of the New Ohio Trust Code by Alan Newman, U of Akron Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-10 , Ohio Northern University Law Review, Vol. 34, 2007 .  The paper is available via SSRN. 

Here is an excerpt: 

"This Article examines the OTC, changes it has made to existing Ohio law, changes made to it from the UTC, policy considerations with respect to its enactment, and various issues it raises, and makes recommendations for changes to it by amendment.

Considerable attention is directed to its creditors’ rights provisions. The UTC’s provisions on that subject have been among its most controversial (and played a significant role in its defeat in Colorado and Oklahoma, and in its repeal in Arizona).

The OTC’s creditors’ rights provisions depart significantly from the UTC’s and include innovations ...

Among the other provisions of the OTC that depart in significant ways from the UTC that the Article addresses are those on the trustee’s duty to keep beneficiaries informed about the trust and the settlor’s right to modify that duty; the ability of persons interested in a trust to enter into “private settlement agreements;” and the modification and termination of trusts."

See our prior posts:  Articles Summarizing Ohio Trust Code; Ohio Trust Code Enacted.

New Ohio Trust and Estate Blog

The Ohio Trust and Estate Blog covers trust and estate law in general, with some posts dealing with Ohio law in particular.  Topics include estate planning, litigation, guardianships and conservatorships, special needs planning, medicaid, SSI/SSDI and medicare.  The homepage has a nice collection of links to other blogs dealing with trusts and estates.  The blog is written by Columbus attorney Michael D. Bonasera.

Ohio Pet Trusts

The new Ohio Uniform Trust Code provides for trusts to take care of a person's pet when the person passes away.  The relevant section is ORC 5804.08.  For an article on Ohio pet trusts, see Ohio's Pet Trust Statute by Julie Mills, Louisiana Pet Lawyer Blog, Jan. 16, 2007.  Source: "Ohio's Pet Trust Statute", Stark County Law Library Blog, Jan. 23, 2007.  Also see: Ohio Law Helps You Provide for Fido After You're Gone, OSBA Law You Can Use.

Taft Signs Bill to Regulate Heir Hunters, Unclaimed Funds Finders

The governor signed Sub. HB 83, which provides a procedure by which the probate court can review agreements where a beneficiary pays a percentage of their inheritance to a third party.  Am Sub. SB 223, also signed into law, will require registration of unclaimed funds finders with the director of commerce. (See new ORC 169.16).  See Governor's Press Release, 12/22/06.   See our prior post: Legislature Passes Bill to Regulate "Heir Hunters"

Legislature Passes Bill to Regulate "Heir Hunters"

Both the Ohio House and Senate have passed Sub. HB 83:

"To enact section 2109.361 of the Revised Code to require the probate court, upon application by an affected beneficiary, to determine the fairness of an agreement requiring a fiduciary or beneficiary to pay a percentage of an inheritance or a dollar amount to any person other than the beneficiary and to allow the probate court to approve, modify, or disapprove the agreement."

The purpose is to regulate professional "heir hunters", who track down beneficiaries in exchange for a percentage of the inheritance.  See Bill Analysis as Reported by S. Judiciary