Arnott v. Arnott
132 Ohio St. 3d 401
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Arnott v. Arnott involves a trust provision that sets an option price for land purchase as the appraised value for federal/state estate-tax purposes.
- Dispute centers on whether the option price should be the appraised value or the fair market value, per the trust language.
- Kenneth contends the option price equals appraiser-determined value minus estate-tax deduction; James contends it equals fair market value from appraisal.
- The Highland County Probate Court held the issue justiciable and the language unambiguous, adopting the appraised value approach.
- The Fourth District applied de novo review to the trust-interpretation issue, later seeking to resolve whether this was the correct standard.
- This Court held that appellate review is abuse-of-discretion for justiciability and de novo for purely legal interpretations of the trust.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs justiciability in declaratory judgments? | Arnott argues Maxwell requires de novo for all issues. | Arnott argues for abuse-of-discretion review on justiciability determinations. | Abuse-of-discretion governs justiciability. |
| What standard governs interpretation of trust language after justiciability is established? | Kenneth contends de novo review for legal issues. | James contends de novo is improper, and abuse-of-discretion should apply broadly. | De novo review applies to purely legal interpretation of trust language. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maxwell v. Fry, 2009-Ohio-1650 (12th Dist. 2009) (conflict on standard of review in declaratory judgments acknowledged)
- Mid-American Fire & Cas. v. Heasley, 113 Ohio St.3d 133 (2007-Ohio-1248) (abuse-of-discretion for declaratory judgments—justiciability)
- Bilyeu v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 36 Ohio St.2d 65 (1973) (abuse-of-discretion in granting/denying declaratory relief)
- Corron v. Corron, 40 Ohio St.3d 198 (1988) (limits of declaratory judgments and justiciability)
- Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 67 Ohio St.3d 500 (1993) (trust interpretation; de novo standard for writing contracts and trusts)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (2003-Ohio-5849) (de novo review for questions of law in declaratory judgments)
- Domo v. McCarthy, 66 Ohio St.3d 312 (1993) (trust interpretation is a matter of law, reviewed de novo)
- In re Trust of Brooke, 82 Ohio St.3d 553 (1998) (trust language interpretation under de novo review)
- Natl. City Bank v. Beyer, 89 Ohio St.3d 152 (2000) (trust interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 67 Ohio St.3d 500 (1993) (de novo standard for contract/trust interpretation)
- Mid-American Fire & Cas. v. Heasley, 113 Ohio St.3d 133 (2007-Ohio-1248) (abuse-of-discretion for declaratory-judgment determinations)