Abraitis v. Gallagher, 2014 Ohio 2987

Relator Sarunas V. Abraitis is executor of his mother Vlada Abraitis’s estate; Vlada died in 2008 and two wills (1978 and 1993) were admitted to probate at different times.
Vytautas Abraitis (Relator’s brother and a beneficiary under the 1978 will) died in 2013 while Vlada’s estate remained open; Vivian Abraitis-Newcomer is personal representative of Vytautas’s estate and sole beneficiary of his estate.
Newcomer filed a probate-court complaint (will contest and declaratory judgment) seeking to set aside the 1993 will and invalidate a survivorship deed — claims premised on her status as an “interested person.”
Relator filed an original action for a writ of prohibition asking the appellate court to bar Judge Gallagher from acting in the probate action, arguing the probate court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because Newcomer lacks standing.
The appellate court analyzed whether the lack of jurisdiction was "patent and unambiguous" and whether relator had an adequate remedy at law; it concluded the probate court has statutory jurisdiction and that relator has an adequate remedy by appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probate court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because Newcomer lacks standing	Abraitis: Newcomer is not an "interested person" and therefore lacks standing to bring the will-contest/declaratory claims, so probate court has no jurisdiction	Respondent (probate court): Newcomer is arguably an interested person; jurisdiction is not patently and unambiguously lacking and the probate court may decide standing	Held: Jurisdiction not patently and unambiguously lacking; probate court has statutory jurisdiction and may determine standing
Whether writ of prohibition is appropriate now	Abraitis: Prohibition required because probate court lacks jurisdiction	Respondent: Prohibition inappropriate because relator has adequate remedy by appeal	Held: Writ denied; relator has adequate remedy at law (appeal)

State ex rel. Zitter v. Suster, 106 Ohio St.3d 87 (2005) (explains standard for issuing writ of prohibition and when lack of jurisdiction is "patent and unambiguous")
State ex rel. Goldberg v. Maloney, 111 Ohio St.3d 211 (2006) (appellate courts need only determine whether jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously lacking)
State ex rel. Rootstown Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Portage Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 78 Ohio St.3d 489 (1997) (party challenging jurisdiction has adequate remedy by appeal)
State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull Cty. Court, 64 Ohio St.3d 502 (1992) (availability of appeal as adequate remedy against jurisdictional assertions)
State ex rel. Gilligan v. Hoddinott, 36 Ohio St.2d 127 (1973) (discretionary nature of issuing writs of prohibition)
State ex rel. Lesher v. Kainrad, 65 Ohio St.2d 68 (1981) (prohibition does not lie if an adequate remedy exists)
State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. Berea, 7 Ohio St.2d 85 (1966) (same principle on adequate remedies)
State ex rel. Merion v. Tuscarawas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 137 Ohio St. 273 (1940) (prohibition should be used with caution and not issue in doubtful cases)