in re Estate of DeChellis, 2020 Ohio 5631

Philip DeChellis died in 2016; surviving children and long-term companion include appellants Patty and Daniel DeChellis and siblings Ann, Michael, and Marc.
Ann was originally fiduciary; after her removal David Dingwell was appointed administrator with will annexed to complete administration.
Probate court found appellants and Ann guilty of concealment in separate proceedings, entering judgments against appellants for $750,000 (plus 10% penalty) and against Ann for $457,857.97, and ordered the fiduciary to include/account for those amounts in the estate inventory and fiduciary account.
Appellants presented a signed letter from all beneficiaries directing Dingwell to dismiss the concealment cases, accept a global settlement (including property sales and distributions), and take other actions; Dingwell sought court instructions, expressing that following the beneficiaries’ directions might violate prior court judgments and his duties.
Appellants moved to remove Dingwell under R.C. 2109.24 for allegedly breaching his fiduciary duty by refusing to follow the beneficiaries’ directive; the probate court denied removal, finding no breach and instructing Dingwell to administer the estate per court orders and the will. Appellants appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the administrator should be removed for failing to follow beneficiaries’ unanimous directive (including dismissal of concealment judgments)	Appellants: Dingwell breached his fiduciary duty by refusing to follow the beneficiaries’ unanimous instructions about estate assets and distributions.	Dingwell: He is accountable to the court and must follow prior court judgments and statutory duties; dismissal would conflict with court orders and duties to collect assets.	Court: Denial of removal affirmed; no evidence of breach; administrator properly sought instructions and prioritized court judgments and testator intent.
Whether Dingwell’s motion for instructions was an improper advisory opinion	Appellants: Motion sought an advisory opinion and was improper.	Dingwell: Motion was a proper request because beneficiaries’ directive directly implicated administration and potential conflict with court orders.	Court: Motion for instructions was proper; probate courts routinely resolve such requests to ascertain testator intent and guide fiduciaries.

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 610, 614 N.E.2d 748 (Ohio 1993) (appellate standard: do not substitute judgment for trial court)
Solomon v. Central Trust Co. of Northeastern Ohio, 63 Ohio St.3d 35, 584 N.E.2d 1185 (Ohio 1992) (courts must ascertain testator intent in will construction)
Tootle v. Tootle, 22 Ohio St.3d 244, 490 N.E.2d 878 (Ohio 1986) (probate court’s role in carrying out testator’s intent)
In re Estate of Jarvis, 67 Ohio App.2d 94, 425 N.E.2d 939 (Ohio App. 1980) (removal of fiduciary is within court’s discretion)
In re Guardianship of Brockman, 160 Ohio App.3d 112, 826 N.E.2d 320 (Ohio App. 2005) (probate court may grant motions for instructions filed by guardians)
In re Estate of Bochik, 24 Ohio App.3d 98, 493 N.E.2d 297 (Ohio App. 1985) (executor may seek instructions from probate court regarding priority of claims)