In re Estate of Robison
2017 Ohio 8980
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Decedent Thomas W. Robison, Jr. died testate; his son Thomas W. Robison, III was appointed executor and filed an inventory that the surviving spouse, Jenny Bee Choo Robison, objected to.
- Spouse alleged the inventory omitted numerous vehicles, mischaracterized ownership of real property (Lancaster), excluded a Pataskala lease, improperly included vehicles potentially subject to R.C. 2106.18 election, and misidentified VINs/descriptions.
- Magistrate hearing: spouse introduced titles, BMV records, deeds, and moved orally to exclude Harlem Road property; magistrate ordered inventory amended to add vehicles, correct VINs, reflect 2/3 interest in Lancaster property, and excluded Harlem Road property; denied other exceptions and set a hearing on removal of the executor.
- Magistrate later denied as moot a motion to correct transcript and removed appellant as executor.
- Trial court adopted the magistrate's decision (March 7, 2017), overruled objections, and extended spouse’s election period; appellant appealed.
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because (1) some assignments challenged magistrate orders not identified in the notice of appeal and not directly appealable, and (2) the March 7 entry overruling objections did not constitute a final appealable order since it did not approve a final inventory and further probate action was contemplated.
Issues
| Issue | Robison (appellant) argument | Robison (appellee)/Probate court argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court should consider challenges to magistrate orders (transcript motion; removal) | Appellant contended the court erred in dismissing his motion to correct transcript and erred in removing him as executor | Magistrate orders are interlocutory and not directly appealable; appellant failed to amend his notice to include post-judgment orders | Dismissed — lacks jurisdiction over magistrate orders not adopted as final and not included in the notice of appeal |
| Whether the March 7, 2017 entry overruling objections is a final appealable order | Appellant challenged validity/authenticity of deed transfers, inventory rulings, and spouse’s election rights | Court argued inventory amendments were required and spouse’s election period was properly extended; further probate action (amended inventory, possible elections) was contemplated | Dismissed — March 7 entry is not a final appealable order because it did not approve a final inventory and further relief remains possible |
| Validity of 1991 quitclaim deed transferring Harlem Road property | Appellant argued deed was void/fraudulent and decedent did not intend to relinquish title | Probate court found recorded quitclaim deed transferred decedent’s interest and excluded the property from inventory | Not reached on appeal merits — rejection of appellant’s challenge was part of nonfinal proceeding and appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether spouse may elect up to two vehicles under R.C. 2106.18 while vehicles are bequeathed to others | Appellant contended spouse cannot elect vehicles bequeathed to others | Court held inventory incomplete; spouse’s statutory election period extended and she may elect once inventory is amended | Not resolved on merits by appellate court — appellate dismissal because order was not final; trial court reserved spouse’s election right pending amended inventory |
Key Cases Cited
- Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Nolan, 72 Ohio St.3d 320 (Ohio 1995) (timely filing of a notice of appeal is the sole jurisdictional requirement to perfect an appeal)
- IBEW, Local Union No. 8 v. Vaughn Indus., L.L.C., 116 Ohio St.3d 335 (Ohio 2007) (orders must satisfy R.C. 2505.02 to be final and appealable)
- Gehm v. Timberline Post & Frame, 112 Ohio St.3d 514 (Ohio 2007) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction if order is not a final appealable order)
- Maritime Mfrs., Inc. v. Hi-Skipper Marina, 70 Ohio St.2d 257 (Ohio 1982) (purpose of a notice of appeal is to advise parties which judgment is being appealed)
- Sheets v. Antes, 14 Ohio App.3d 278 (10th Dist. 1984) (probate court order approving an inventory that omits items can be a final, appealable order)