Dibert v. Carpenter
2017 Ohio 689
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Gerald Dibert sued his sister Cynthia Carpenter over administration of the Pickering Trust; Cynthia counterclaimed, later amending to assert 13 claims relating to the separate Dibert Trust (their father’s trust).
- The parties are beneficiaries and (at various times) co-trustees of the Dibert Trust; a special fiduciary (Howard Traul) was later appointed and substituted as trustee for trust-related matters.
- After years of proceedings (motions, recusals, a partial summary-judgment appeal, and multiple trial days), the trial court awarded judgment on four counterclaims in favor of the Dibert Trust totaling $287,786.32 and later awarded Cynthia $105,127 in attorney fees plus $719.50 in deposition costs.
- Key contested procedural/legal issues included: right to jury trial in probate/juvenile/division, whether Cynthia (a beneficiary but removed as trustee) was the real party in interest to bring Dibert-Trust claims, whether orders entered by a judge who had earlier recused herself were valid, and untimeliness of Gerald’s attempts to amend pleadings.
- The appellate court affirmed: (1) no jury right on the trust-counterclaims; (2) Cynthia’s individual beneficiary capacity was a proper real party in interest for trust claims (and Gerald waived some capacity defenses); (3) no reversible error from the recused judge’s limited participation; (4) denial of Gerald’s late motion to amend was not an abuse of discretion; and (5) the attorney-fee award under R.C. 5810.04 was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dibert) | Defendant's Argument (Carpenter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to jury trial for trust claims | Constitutional right to jury (Ohio Const. Art I §5) and/or statutory right | Probate court matters in equity; no statutory right in probate; jury demand not properly made for counterclaims | No jury trial; probate judge discretion under R.C. 2101.31 and trust claims are equitable in nature |
| Whether Dibert Trust counterclaims could be adjudicated against Cynthia individually (real party capacity) | Counterclaims improper because Dibert Trust/trustee (not Cynthia individually) was the real party in interest | Cynthia as beneficiary has standing; Gerald waived capacity defenses by litigating and not timely objecting | Cynthia (as beneficiary) was a proper real party in interest; amended counterclaim cured capacity issues; trial on those claims proper |
| Validity of orders/participation by judge who earlier recused herself | Orders entered after recusal were void; judge shouldn’t have further participated | Disqualification must be pursued under R.C. 2701.03; party waived objection and did not show prejudice | No reversible error; procedures for disqualification were not followed and issues were waived; successor judge reaffirmed prior rulings |
| Denial of leave to amend answer and motion to close case | Amendment was timely after recusal and successor judge should allow it; relief in interest of justice | Motion to amend was untimely, highly prejudicial, and raised new claims late in long litigation | Denial not an abuse of discretion: proposed amendment was untimely and Justice did not require leave at late stage |
| Award of attorney fees and costs to Cynthia | Fees improper because counterclaims invalidly presented / trustee (special fiduciary) should have prosecuted | Fees authorized by statute for trust litigation beneficial to trust; Cynthia prevailed on several claims | Fee award affirmed under R.C. 5810.04: litigation benefited the trust; amount and costs appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Dibert v. Carpenter, 196 Ohio App.3d 1, 2011-Ohio-5691, 961 N.E.2d 1217 (2d Dist.) (discusses prior summary-judgment ruling and notice re: option-to-purchase)
- Belding v. State, 121 Ohio St. 393, 169 N.E. 301 (Ohio 1929) (Ohio Const. Art I §5 preserves jury only where it existed at common law; many trust/chancery matters are equitable)
- Soler v. Evans, St. Clair & Kelsey, 94 Ohio St.3d 432, 763 N.E.2d 1169 (Ohio 2002) (a general jury demand applies to subsequently filed counterclaims)
- Gantz v. Louisville, 155 Ohio St. 425, 99 N.E.2d 308 (Ohio 1951) (determine law vs. equity from pleadings; trusts generally chancery matters)
- Papiernik v. Papiernik, 45 Ohio St.3d 337, 544 N.E.2d 664 (Ohio 1989) (beneficiaries with vested interests have standing to pursue trust-related relief)
- In re Disqualification of Capper, 134 Ohio St.3d 1271, 2012-Ohio-6287, 984 N.E.2d 1082 (Ohio 2012) (disqualification procedure under R.C. 2701.03 is exclusive)