2024 Ohio 1983
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Tina Haddad and Nina Maalouf-Masek are sisters whose mother, Rosaline Haddad, left an estate with significant assets.
- In 2000, Rosaline executed a will splitting assets equally between both daughters, but in 2004, executed a new will leaving nearly everything to Nina, with Tina receiving only $5,000 and later, based on a no-contest clause, $1.
- After Rosaline’s death in 2019, the 2004 will was probated, and Tina challenged it, alleging undue influence and misappropriation of non-probate assets by Nina.
- After losing the will contest in probate court (jury finding no undue influence, 2004 will valid), Tina filed suit in the general division for intentional interference with expectancy of inheritance (IIEI) and related claims, alleging Nina depleted assets through improper transfers and theft.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Nina, and the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Tina failed to produce evidence of an actionable expectancy of inheritance or damages, and that her procedural and substantive arguments lacked merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper due to incomplete discovery | Discovery was restricted during probate; more was needed to prove claims about non-probate assets and wrongdoing. | Tina did not use Civil Rule 56(F) to request more time for discovery and did not preserve this issue for appeal. | Not error to rule; Tina failed to properly seek additional discovery. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given the evidence and burdens | Plaintiff presented evidence (affidavits, tax returns, testimony) raising factual disputes about depletion of assets and Nina’s interference. | Tina’s evidence was vague, conclusory, and failed to show a legally recognizable expectancy or damages, given probate determinations. | Proper; no genuine issue of material fact; Tina had no expectancy beyond what was received per will. |
| Whether IIEI claim survives probate findings about will’s validity | IIEI based on alleged non-probate assets and expectancy of inheritance beyond the will. | No supporting evidence of a valid expectancy or that Nina interfered with a legally protected inheritance interest; probate decisions control. | No evidence of actionable expectancy or damages; probate findings preclude further claim. |
| Whether claims for unjust enrichment, conversion, and civil damages for crime were viable | Tina suffered injury because Nina converted Rosaline’s assets, to which Tina had an expectancy or right. | Any injury was to Rosaline, not Tina; Tina had no ownership or legal right to the disputed property; recovery lies with estate, not a third party. | Proper to dismiss; Tina lacked standing and failed to show she conferred a benefit or owned assets in question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Firestone v. Galbreath, 67 Ohio St.3d 87 (Ohio 1993) (sets out elements for intentional interference with expectancy of inheritance)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment burdens and standard)
- Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St.3d 278 (Ohio 2005) (unjust enrichment claim prerequisites)
- Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 12 Ohio St.3d 179 (Ohio 1984) (elements of unjust enrichment)
- Wright v. Bloom, 69 Ohio St.3d 596 (Ohio 1994) (ownership of funds in joint bank accounts upon death)
- Buddenberg v. Weisdack, 161 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio 2020) (route for civil damages based on criminal acts)