In re Estate of Bohl
2016 Ohio 637
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Ruby and Clarence Bohl owned a 115-acre Georgetown farm; four children: Larry, Shirley, Pamela, Roger. Larry lived and worked on the farm his entire life and was executor after Ruby’s death; other children lived away.
- Ruby died at 93 in 2012; Ruby’s will left the farm to be divided equally among the four children; Larry was appointed executor August 15, 2012.
- Larry claimed $101,084.20 against the estate for expenses including medical bills, farm maintenance, insurance, and real estate taxes; Shirley claimed $32,600 for home caregiver expenses; Pamela objected.
- Larry testified about an alleged oral agreement with his parents to maintain the farm and be reimbursed from Ruby’s estate after death; Pamela objected to admissibility of such testimony.
- Magistrate awarded reimbursement for medical bills and caregiver costs and allowed amendment for an additional $17,170.55; probate court limited some claims, sustaining Pamela’s objections to farm expenses and to the additional caregiver amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether oral contract between family members may support reimbursement claims. | Bohl argues the agreement may be oral under Hinkle and Merrick. | Pamela contends such contract must be written; evidence rules restrict oral family agreements. | Oral express contract may support reimbursement if proven clear and convincing; not required to be writing. |
| Does Hinkle require a written agreement for family-member service reimbursement claims? | Larry contends Hinkle allows parol evidence. | Pamela asserts no writing is required by Hinkle. | Hinkle allows unwritten express contracts; writing not mandatory. |
| Can unjust enrichment support reimbursement for expenses paid by Larry and Shirley? | Larry and Shirley claim unjust enrichment against Ruby’s estate. | Estate should not be liable if no unjust enrichment established. | Unjust enrichment supported for medical and caregiver expenses; farm-expense claims denied. |
| Are Civ.R. 15(B)/(C) amendments and relation back applicable to executor claims against an estate? | Larry sought to amend to include caregiver-expense amount. | Civ.R. 15(B)/(C) not applicable to executor claims against the estate. | Civ.R. 15(B)/(C) inapplicable; amendment not permitted to relate back; claim time-barred. |
| Did Evid.R. 804(B)(5) bar the testimony about oral contracts between deceased parents and Larry? | Larry's testimony explains the contract terms. | Rule excludes decedent statements as hearsay. | Evid.R. 804(B)(5) does not apply; magistrate properly admitted contextual testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hinkle v. Sage, 67 Ohio St. 256 (Ohio 1902) (family-member reimbursement requires express contract; may be oral; must be clear and convincing)
- Merrick v. Ditzler, 91 Ohio St. 256 (Ohio 1915) (standard of proof for express contracts under family-member rule is clear and convincing)
- Sabin v. Graves, 86 Ohio App.3d 628 (Ohio App. 1993) (presumption of gratuitous services between family members may be overcome)
- Moore v. Curtzweiler, 165 Ohio St. 194 (Ohio 1956) (oral contracts for services to be paid from estate are enforceable under certain conditions)
- Episcopal Retirement Homes, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Industrial Relations, 61 Ohio St.3d 366 (Ohio 1991) (essential terms required for contract enforcement)