In re Guardianship of Bakhtiar
2017 Ohio 5835
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2014 Lorain County Probate Court found Fourough Bakhtiar incompetent and appointed daughter Jaleh Presutto guardian of the person and attorney Zachary Simonoff guardian of the estate.
- Appellant Dariush Saghafi, a son of the ward, filed (late 2015) an application to be appointed guardian and motions to remove Presutto and Simonoff.
- On January 7, 2016, Saghafi issued subpoenas to multiple banks, the Cleveland Clinic, Nordstrom, Allianz, and Visa; the probate court sua sponte stayed responses to those subpoenas and scheduled a February 9, 2016 hearing to determine relevancy and basis for his motions.
- Saghafi moved for relief from the stay; the court held the scheduled hearing, denied Saghafi’s application to be guardian and his motions to remove the existing guardians, quashed the subpoenas, and denied the relief motion as moot.
- Saghafi appealed, raising three assignments of error contending the stay of subpoenas was improper, he was denied discovery and a full merits hearing, and the court erred under res judicata in denying his removal motions.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery, Saghafi’s arguments challenging discovery replicated his first assignment of error, and his res judicata claim relied on a faulty factual premise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by sua sponte staying subpoenas/responses | Saghafi: Civil rules do not authorize a court to sua sponte stay subpoenas; stay improperly blocked discovery | Guardians/Trial court: Court has inherent authority and broad discretion to control its docket and discovery; stay was reasonable pending dispositive motions | Court: No abuse of discretion; stay was within court’s inherent discovery control |
| Whether Saghafi was denied opportunity to conduct discovery before hearing on motions to remove | Saghafi: He was a party and was deprived of discovery rights under Civ.R. 26 and 45 prior to hearing | Court/defense: The only discovery withheld were subpoenas stayed; stay was proper given pending motions filed before subpoenas | Court: Argument duplicates Assignment 1; no abuse of discretion in staying discovery |
| Whether trial court erred by denying motions to remove guardians under res judicata | Saghafi: Removal motions are precluded or mishandled under res judicata | Court/defense: Trial court denied removal based on guardians’ performance under R.C. 2111.02(C), not on res judicata | Court: Saghafi’s premise is factually incorrect; res judicata claim fails |
| Whether Saghafi’s application for appointment as guardian was improperly denied | Saghafi: (argued in appeal) sought appointment | Trial court: Found existing guardians had faithfully and completely fulfilled duties | Court: Upheld denial; existing guardians met statutory duties |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (Ohio 1993) (appellate court must not substitute its judgment for trial court when reviewing discretion)
- State ex rel. Grandview Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Gorman, 51 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 1990) (trial courts have extensive authority over discovery)
- State ex rel. Citizens for Open, Responsive & Accountable Govt. v. Register, 116 Ohio St.3d 88 (Ohio 2007) (courts possess broad discretion over discovery matters)