In re Estate of von Meyer
2017 Ohio 5839
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Decedent died testate in 2011; will disinherited her husband (Ferdinand von Meyer) and named three relatives and an endowment as beneficiaries. The decedent’s sister, Kathleen Dane, was appointed executrix and is also a beneficiary.
- Multiple suits arose from estate-related disputes; two settled/dismissed and one remained: competing claims to a Wells Fargo account held by the decedent and Dane (dispute over whether the account had rights of survivorship).
- Husband moved (2015) to remove Dane as executrix, alleging misappropriation (withdrawal from a LorMet account), false inventory/omissions, false statements to probate court, improper attempts to collect funeral expenses, and unresolved adverse claims between Dane and the estate/Husband.
- The magistrate held a hearing, found no adjudication of fiduciary misconduct, and denied removal. The probate court overruled Husband’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- Husband appealed, arguing abuse of discretion; the appellate court reviewed deference standards for magistrate credibility findings and executor removal and affirmed the probate court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Dane's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether executor should be removed under R.C. 2113.18 for unsettled claims between executor and estate | Ongoing litigation (Wells Fargo account) and alleged monetary obligations to Husband/estate justify removal | Only one suit remains (Wells Fargo); other matters settled/dismissed; litigation alone insufficient for removal | Court held ongoing litigation alone does not require removal; no abuse of discretion in denying removal under 2113.18 |
| Whether executor should be removed under R.C. 2109.24 for failure to file accurate inventory or other misconduct (fraud, neglect, etc.) | Dane omitted assets, filed inaccurate inventory, withdrew estate funds, made false representations to the court | Probate court ordered no initial inventory for litigation-only opening; Dane later filed inventory and intends to amend; actions were based on her (believed) understanding of ownership | Court found testimony did not establish statutory grounds (fraud/incompetence/neglect) and deferred to magistrate credibility findings; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether credibility determinations by magistrate were erroneous | Husband argued evidence established misconduct and false statements | Dane contested or explained actions as based on belief about asset ownership; probate court credited magistrate | Court deferred to factfinder’s credibility assessments and upheld denial of removal |
| Whether unresolved claims create hostility that interferes with estate administration | Husband asserted hostility would impair proper management and warranted removal | Argument not raised below, thus forfeited on appeal; lack of prior development in lower court | Court refused to consider new argument on appeal and affirmed lower courts’ decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Pio v. Ramsier, 88 Ohio App.3d 133 (9th Dist. 1993) (removal of executor rests in trial court’s discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion defined as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)