Clark v. Beyoglides
2021 Ohio 4588
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Thomas Sears died intestate in December 2014; Montgomery County Probate Court opened Estate No. 2015EST00510 and appointed Harry G. Beyoglides Jr. as administrator in April 2015.
- Administrator filed inventory (including two condemned Dayton parcels and cash) and multiple partial accounts; he ultimately applied for and the court issued certificates of transfer for undivided one-half interests to Sears’s niece Kimberly Boedecker and nephew Michael Clark (application filed July 24, 2018; recorded Aug. 9, 2018).
- Kimberly and Michael filed written disclaimers of their interests (Sept. 19, 2018); the remaining potential takers (their children) filed disclaimers in Dec. 2018.
- Appellees sued the administrator (and county recorder/auditor) in Aug. 2020 seeking recognition of the disclaimers and related relief after the City issued nuisance notices and county records continued to show their relatives as owners.
- Administrator asserted laches and challenged whether a probate-issued certificate of transfer qualifies as a “donative instrument” under R.C. 5815.36(B)(3)(a); the probate court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a probate "certificate of transfer" qualifies as a "donative instrument" under R.C. 5815.36(B)(3)(a) for a valid disclaimer | Certificate of transfer satisfies statute’s requirement and disclaimers were properly made once certificate was issued/recorded | Certificate of transfer is not a donative instrument because intestate title passes at death and the certificate is only a memorialization | Certificate of transfer can be treated as a donative instrument for purposes of R.C. 5815.36; court rejects defendant’s plain-error challenge and upholds disclaimers |
| Whether laches bars recognition of the disclaimers | Disclaimants filed promptly after transfer certificate; delays were caused by administrator’s actions and estate proceedings, so no unreasonable delay or prejudice | Heir takers unreasonably delayed (years), had notice via inventories/accounts, and administrator was prejudiced because administration should proceed orderly | No laches: court finds no unjustifiable delay or material prejudice given estate administration timeline and that takers’ interests weren’t finally ascertainable until transfer; laches defense fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Winters Nat. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Riffe, 2 Ohio St.2d 72 (discusses that heirs take title at decedent's death)
- Cline v. Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 61 Ohio St.3d 93 (statutory interpretation: plain meaning and rules when statute ambiguous)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (plain error doctrine in civil cases is disfavored and applies only in rare cases)
- Stevens v. Radey, 117 Ohio St.3d 65 (statutory rule governing intestate succession identifies who takes unaccounted-for property)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Connin v. Bailey, 15 Ohio St.3d 34 (prejudice for laches must be material)