In re Estate of Shoemaker
2017 Ohio 8699
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Decedent Joyce Shoemaker died July 25, 2015; her will was probated and named Jean Ann Guthrie (appellant) as personal representative and Anthony Drummond (appellee) as a beneficiary of one-half the residue.
- Drummond filed a will contest alleging lack of capacity, improper execution, fraud/undue influence, and breach of fiduciary duty; other beneficiaries included the decedent’s brother Donald Burchett and two churches.
- Appellant and appellee negotiated an oral settlement (terms summarized on the record) and jointly requested court approval to dismiss the will contest; receiver was appointed and accounting reviewed.
- At a January 3, 2017 hearing the court declined to enforce the settlement, stating the testator’s clearly expressed intent in the will should control; no evidentiary hearing was held to determine whether other beneficiaries had been afforded an opportunity to be heard.
- On appeal the Fourth District affirmed, not because the settlement was invalid per se, but because the record lacked evidence that the other interested parties had an opportunity to be heard about the proposed settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guthrie) | Defendant's Argument (Drummond) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parties’ oral settlement of the will contest should be enforced | Parties freely contracted; public policy favors settlement; no fraud or collusion; terms mirror the will for other beneficiaries | Now opposes enforcement and asks to proceed with contest; notes receiver expenses and change of position | Court refused enforcement based on lack of record showing other interested parties had an opportunity to be heard; affirmed on that alternative ground |
| Whether an oral (non‑journalized) settlement is enforceable | Oral settlements are enforceable if terms are sufficiently certain; parties manifested mutual assent | Argues agreement was never journalized and enforcement is improper | Court recognized oral agreements can be enforceable but found insufficiency of record regarding notice/hearing for other beneficiaries |
| Whether enforcing the settlement would contravene public policy favoring testamentary intent | Settlement does not undermine testator’s intent and avoids litigation costs; beneficiaries receive same bequests | Trial court prioritized testator’s clearly expressed will over parties’ agreement | Court noted prevailing authority supports enforceability of will‑settlement agreements absent collusion, but still required procedural protections for non‑settling parties |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before enforcing settlement | No evidentiary hearing necessary because terms were clear and beneficiaries’ shares matched will | Argued changed mind and practical impediments (estate expenses) make settlement infeasible | Court held an evidentiary hearing was appropriate to determine whether other interested parties were given opportunity to be heard; absence of that record justified denial and affirmation on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Connell, 26 Ohio App.2d 253 (Ohio Ct. App. 1971) (parties may by agreement settle will contests absent fraud or collusion)
- Stevens v. Natl. City Bank, 45 Ohio St.3d 276 (Ohio 1989) (courts seek to effectuate testator's intent when construing wills)
- Ohio Citizens Bank v. Mills, 45 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 1989) (same principle on ascertainment of intent)
- Mack v. Polson Rubber Co., 14 Ohio St.3d 34 (Ohio 1984) (trial court authority to enforce settlements)
- Krischbaum v. Dillon, 58 Ohio St.3d 58 (Ohio 1991) (settlements upheld absent collusion or bad faith to detriment of non‑settling parties)
- Spercel v. Sterling Indus., Inc., 31 Ohio St.2d 36 (Ohio 1972) (oral settlement enforceable if terms sufficiently certain)
- Rulli v. Fan Co., 79 Ohio St.3d 374 (Ohio 1997) (if settlement terms are uncertain court should hold a hearing)
- Wilborn v. Bank One Corp., 121 Ohio St.3d 546 (Ohio 2009) (contractual agreements about attorney fees and freedom to contract generally enforceable)
- Andes v. Shipp, 165 Ohio St. 275 (Ohio 1956) (weight of authority supports enforceability of agreements settling will contests)