Graham v. Szuch
2014 Ohio 1727
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Family stock dispute over four Skrl Companies; trust created by Stanley Skrlj (1976) with Trust A (marital) and Trust B (non-marital)
- Trusts provided equal distribution to Sonja and Sandra upon Olga's death; KeyBank as trustee
- Olga died 2002; surviving assets passed to trustee; 7 shares per company funded Trust A and 93 shares per company funded Trust B
- Trust B assets were to be distributed 50/50 to Sonja and Sandra after Olga’s death, but KeyBank managed Trust B for years and did not distribute
- Sandra died in 2011; Sonja claimed half of Sandra’s 46.5 shares in each Skrl Company; trial court granted summary judgment to Szuch; Sonja appeals
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sandra renounced her gift of shares | Sandra never registered shares; presumption of acceptance | Renunciation requires deliberate act; no evidence of intent to renounce | Sandra did not renounce; interests vested on Olga’s death |
| Whether statutory disclaimer governs transfer of shares | Statute supports non-passing if disclaimer not properly executed | Disclaimers must be in writing; Sandra did not execute a disclaimer | No valid disclaimer; no renunciation; Sandra’s estate entitled to shares |
| Whether delivery/registration conditions affect ownership | Ownership contingent on delivery/registration by Sandra | Vesting occurs upon death of settlor per trust terms; certificates not required | Vesting occurred automatically; lack of registration did not defeat ownership |
| Whether unclean hands barred Szuch's counterclaim | Sandra and Szuch engaged in misconduct to deprive Sonja | Sonja has legal remedies; unclean hands not applicable here | Unclean hands not applied; remedies exist; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether Bartolotta's affidavit paragraphs 16,21-28 were admissible | Affidavit contains expert-like conclusions | Affidavits may contain lay opinions if helpful and based on perception | Affidavit paragraphs properly admitted; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Hershey, 1 Ohio App.2d 511 (Ohio App.2d 1965) (renunciation requires an assent by donees; distinction when not requested by party)
- Andrews v. Ohio State Teachers Retirement Sys. Bd., 62 Ohio St.2d 202 (1980) (presumption that gifts are accepted unless renounced)
- Algren v. Algren, 183 Ohio App.3d 114 (2009) (stock ownership may vest without stock certificates)
- Domo v. McCarthy, 66 Ohio St.3d 312 (1993) (trust interpretation to effect settlor’s intent; unambiguous terms control)
- State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 (2006) (evidentiary standard for lay opinion under Civ.R. 56(E) and Evid.R. 701)
- Youssef v. Parr, Inc., 69 Ohio App.3d 679 (1990) (affidavits must be based on personal knowledge and admissible facts)
- Tomlinson v. Cincinnati, 4 Ohio St.3d 66 (1983) (affidavits containing opinions may be considered if based on perception)
- Estate of Thomas v. Thomas, 2012-Ohio-3992 (Ohio) (stock ownership and trust principles; certificates not necessary to establish ownership)
- Brown v. Routzhan, 63 F.2d 914 (1933) (common law disclaimer may be non-written but requires deliberate act)
- Brown v. Routzhan, 63 F.2d 914 (1933) (non-written acceptance or renunciation requires intent)
- Crotts v. State, 104 Ohio St.3d 432 (2004) (ultimate issue testimony not barred if rationally based on perception)