2021 Ohio 1558
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- John A. Damschroder died testate in 2015; his will (Art. VI) residually divided the estate between daughter Tina Pifher and step‑daughter Debra Schoen.
- Article VIII contained an in terrorem (no‑contest) clause: any legatee who directly or indirectly opposes probate or initiates/participates in litigation to contest the will forfeits their legacy.
- In 2016, Lia Kline (disinherited by the will) filed a will‑contest suit naming Debra as a defendant; Debra filed a pro se letter‑answer and voluntarily testified at the four‑day jury trial.
- The jury upheld the will; judgment was entered for defendants including Debra. In 2019 the Executor filed a declaratory‑judgment action asking whether Debra’s prior conduct triggered the no‑contest clause.
- The probate court, after briefing and excerpts of trial testimony, held Debra did not trigger Article VIII because her answer and testimony were defensive/requests for court supervision to protect estate interests, not an attempt to invalidate the will.
- Tina appealed; the appellate court affirmed, finding Debra’s conduct did not amount to initiation/participation in a contest that would forfeit her inheritance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Debra’s answer and voluntary testimony in the 2016 will‑contest triggered the will’s in terrorem clause | Debra’s answer and testimony amounted to participation in and prosecution of litigation to contest the will, so Article VIII forfeits her share | Debra only defended her interests and sought probate‑court supervision; she did not initiate or seek to invalidate the will | The court held Debra did not trigger the no‑contest clause: defensive pleadings and testimony to protect interests/seek oversight do not equal a contest that forfeits a legacy |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirkbride v. Hickok, 155 Ohio St. 293 (1951) (describing purpose and scope of in terrorem clauses in wills)
- Bradford v. Bradford, 19 Ohio St. 546 (1869) (longstanding recognition of validity of no‑contest provisions)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard explained)
- Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 (2012) (standards for appellate review of declaratory‑judgment justiciability and legal questions)