In re Estate of Griffa, 2012 Ohio 904

Wilma Griffa died April 6, 2011, leaving a will naming executors/beneficiaries at issue.
On May 25, 2011, David Goodspeed (great-grandson) and Dave Goodspeed (grandson) each sought authority to administer Griffa’s estate in probate court.
The trial court set a hearing for June 10, 2011, regarding those applications.
On June 3, 2011, David moved to dismiss Dave’s application, arguing improper service and lack of proper notice under R.C. 2113.07; the court heard the matter June 10, 2011.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss on June 15, 2011, and separately concluded Griffa intended Dave to be sole beneficiary and executor.
David Goodspeed appealed the June 15, 2011 order denying the motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the order denying the motion to dismiss is a final, appealable order	Goodspeed contends the order affects a substantial right in a probate context and is appealable under RC 2505.02.	Appellee argues the order is not final or appealable because it appoints an executor, not conclusively removing one, and does not foreclose further relief.	The appeal is dismissed as the order is not a final, appealable order.

Wead v. Lutz, 161 Ohio App.3d 580 (Oh. Ct. App. 12th Dist. 2005) (treats probate administration proceedings as special proceedings)
In re Estate of Sneed, 166 Ohio App.3d 595 (Oh. Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2006) (some districts view probate matters as not always final under 2505.02)
Slavens v. Estate, 2006-Ohio-6699 (4th Dist. 2006) (appointment of executor not a final appealable order)
Bell v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 67 Ohio St.3d 60 (1993) (substantial right analysis for finality under 2505.02)
Oliver v. Bank One, Dayton, N.A., 60 Ohio St.3d 32 (1991) (testator's intent and fiduciary appointment considerations)
Reinhard v. Peck, 159 Ohio St.116 (1953) (executor duties and estate administration framework)
Nagle v. Ingram, 40 Ohio App.2d 40 (1974) (statutory protections for estate fiduciaries)