In re L.M.W., 2019 Ohio 3873

Decedent died testate on August 2, 2012; earlier will dated July 18, 1991 (1991 Will) named Sheridan Hatter as personal representative and residuary beneficiary.
In March 2017 the probate court admitted the 1991 Will and appointed Hatter executor.
In November 2017 Michelle Tally Hunter Wilson submitted a later will dated July 29, 2002 (2002 Will) that named Wilson residuary beneficiary and executor and disinherited Hatter; the 2002 Will included a no‑contest clause.
At a hearing the drafting attorney (testifying from routine practice) and his former secretary (who remembered witnessing the signing) testified in support of the 2002 Will; a magistrate admitted the 2002 Will to probate.
The probate court overruled Hatter’s objections but (erroneously) treated the proceeding like a will‑contest by placing the burden on Hatter to disprove execution; Hatter appealed.
The appeals court held the order admitting the later will was a final, appealable order (because it revoked Hatter’s executor status) and reversed and remanded because the probate court applied the incorrect burden of proof; the court did not reach the merits of the will’s validity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hatter)	Defendant's Argument (Wilson / Proponent)	Held
Finality / Jurisdiction: Is the order admitting the later will a final, appealable order?	Admitting the 2002 Will revoked Hatter’s appointment as executor and thus affected a substantial right making the order appealable.	The proceeding need not be immediately appealable (implicit argument that relief could be sought in other proceedings).	Order was final and appealable because admitting a later will operates to revoke the earlier probate order and effectively removes the executor.
Burden of proof: Who bears the burden to show a later will was properly executed when seeking admission to probate?	The proponent must make a prima‑facie case; the probate court erred by requiring Hatter (contestant) to disprove execution.	Probate court (and implicitly Wilson) treated the contestant as bearing the burden to disprove execution.	Reversed: the court must apply the correct rule that the proponent bears the initial burden to establish a prima‑facie case; only after admission does the presumption shift.
Merits of admission: Was the 2002 Will validly executed?	The 2002 Will was not properly executed and should not have been admitted.	The attorney and secretary testimony supported proper execution; the magistrate admitted the will.	Not reached: appellate court remanded for reconsideration under the correct burden of proof.

In re Frey's Estate, 139 Ohio St. 354 (1942) (finality of probate orders governs appellate jurisdiction)
Krischbaum v. Dillon, 58 Ohio St.3d 58 (1991) (probate admission creates a rebuttable presumption of validity)
In re Young, 60 Ohio App.2d 390 (1978) (proponent must make a prima‑facie case for a will’s validity; presumption arises after probate)
In re Hathaway's Will, 4 Ohio St. 383 (1854) (contestant must overcome presumption of validity once will is probated)