In re Estate of Torbett, 2017 Ohio 417

Eula Torbett, long-time Fayette County resident, suffered dementia and died Dec. 23, 2014 while in Franklin County hospice. A Franklin County guardian had been appointed for her in Nov. 2014.
A 2002 will for Eula was filed in Fayette County on Jan. 14, 2015; William Torbett applied to probate it and to be appointed administrator on Jan. 26, 2015. A hearing on the Fayette applications occurred on May 13, 2015 with all parties present.
On June 24, 2015, without notice to William or other Fayette parties, the Franklin County Probate Court admitted a 2014 will and issued letters to Julia Tromblay as executor. The Franklin court did not appear aware of the pending Fayette proceeding.
On July 14, 2015 Fayette County issued an entry admitting the 2002 will and appointing William administrator, finding Eula remained domiciled in Fayette County at death and that Fayette had exclusive jurisdiction.
Tromblay moved in Fayette to revoke admission of the 2002 will and rescind William’s appointment, arguing Franklin had exclusive jurisdiction because it admitted the 2014 will first; Fayette denied the motion and refused to transfer the matter. Tromblay appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Tromblay)	Defendant's Argument (William/Fayette)	Held
Which probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to probate Eula's will?	Franklin exercised jurisdiction first by admitting the 2014 will on June 24, 2015, so it has exclusive jurisdiction.	Fayette had already filed, served, and conducted a hearing (May 13, 2015) on an application to administer Eula's estate, vesting jurisdiction in Fayette; domicile controls venue for probate.	Fayette had jurisdiction; filing/notice and hearing in Fayette before Franklin’s filings vested jurisdiction there.
Did admission of the 2014 will in Franklin invalidate the 2002 will probated in Fayette?	Franklin’s prior admission of the later will meant the 2002 will should be revoked and William’s appointment rescinded.	Any challenge to the 2014 will’s validity can be addressed by the court with jurisdiction (Fayette); Franklin’s form orders did not override Fayette’s jurisdiction.	No; Fayette properly exercised jurisdiction and may address validity of the 2014 will.
Should the Fayette court have transferred the case to Franklin to resolve which will is valid?	Fayette abused its discretion by refusing to transfer to Franklin for determination of will validity.	Fayette properly retained the case because it had jurisdiction and could adjudicate will disputes.	No abuse of discretion; Fayette properly refused transfer.

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (jurisdiction is the court's statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case)
Corron v. Corron, 40 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1988) (probate courts are courts of limited statutory jurisdiction)
In re Guardianship of Hollins, 114 Ohio St.3d 434 (Ohio 2007) (discussing the limited authority of probate courts)
State ex rel. Lee v. Trumbull Cty. Probate Court, 83 Ohio St.3d 369 (Ohio 1998) (R.C. 2107.11 governs where a will shall be admitted to probate)