Fried v. Abraitis
2017 Ohio 746
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Vlada died in 2008; her sons were Sarunas and Vytautas. Vytautas died in 2011; his ex-wife Vivian is personal representative of his estate.
- Adam Fried, as administrator of Vlada’s estate, sued for a declaratory judgment (Jan. 2015) seeking a ruling that Sarunas forfeited any share under Vlada’s 1993 will because of bad-faith conduct, and that estate assets should go to Vytautas’s estate representative (Vivian).
- Vivian answered and filed a cross-claim against Sarunas seeking attorney fees and costs for alleged frivolous/bad-faith conduct; Sarunas denied liability and asserted defenses.
- Sarunas moved for summary judgment, arguing the statute of limitations barred Fried’s forfeiture claim; the trial court denied summary judgment, found Sarunas had forfeited his interest by intentionally withholding the 1993 will, granted the declaratory relief, and ordered distribution to Vivian as Vytautas’s personal representative.
- The trial court’s judgment did not address Vivian’s cross-claim and did not include Civ.R. 54(B) language that there was "no just reason for delay."
- The appellate court dismissed Sarunas’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court’s order was not a final, appealable order (unresolved cross-claim; no Civ.R. 54(B) certification).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality / appellate jurisdiction | Fried argued trial judgment resolving declaratory claim is reviewable | Sarunas did not contest lack of Civ.R.54(B) in his appeal framing | Judgment is not final or appealable because Vivian’s cross-claim remains undecided and Civ.R.54(B) language is absent; appellate court lacks jurisdiction and appeal dismissed. |
| Summary judgment on statute of limitations | Fried contended claim timely (forfeiture under R.C. 2907.10) | Sarunas argued statute of limitations barred the forfeiture claim, entitling him to summary judgment | Trial court denied Sarunas’s motion, but appellate court did not reach merits due to lack of final order. |
| Forfeiture of testamentary right by bad faith withholding will | Fried sought declaration that Sarunas’s intentional withholding of the 1993 will forfeited his rights under the will | Sarunas denied bad faith and contested forfeiture liability | Trial court found forfeiture and ordered distribution to Vivian; appellate court did not review merits because the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 44 Ohio St.3d 86 (1989) (an order must satisfy R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B) to be a final, appealable order when multiple claims/parties are involved)
- Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities v. Professionals Guild of Ohio, 46 Ohio St.3d 147 (1989) (a final order must dispose of the whole merits or a separate, distinct branch leaving nothing for further determination)
- Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92 (1989) (absent Civ.R. 54(B) certification, judgments adjudicating fewer than all claims/parties are not final and are subject to revision)
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Co. v. Caldwell, 196 Ohio App.3d 636 (2011) (an order resolving fewer than all claims requires Civ.R. 54(B) language to be final and appealable)