In re Sucholdoski, 2011 Ohio 6333

Calabrese cared for her ailing mother for about 12 years, handling groceries, laundry, transportation, and daily care.
Siblings living outside Ohio did not visit the mother during the final seven years of life.
At death, the will split the estate equally among the three daughters, but Calabrese also received about $100,000 in non-probate assets.
Calabrese sought quantum meruit relief for care services rendered over the last twelve years; Kathryn Maillard objected to the claim.
The estate fiduciary recommended denying the care claim under Hinkle v. Sage, but advised compensation for preparing the real property for sale; the probate court adopted this and denied the care claim while awarding a 7% real estate commission of $25,200.
On appeal, the court sustained the first assignment (denying the care claim) and sustained the second assignment (ambiguity in commission calculation) and remanded for clarification of the commission

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hinkle bars Calabrese’s quantum meruit claim	Calabrese	Estate	Appellate court did not reach merits; affirmance is based on other grounds; issue resolved in favor of affirming the denial on alternative grounds.
Whether the probate court properly calculated Calabrese’s commission	Calabrese	Estate/others	Second assignment sustained; remanded for clarification of the 7% commission calculation due to discrepancy between proven sale value and used base amount.

Hinkle v. Sage, 67 Ohio St. 256 (1902) (privacy of applying unjust enrichment/quantum meruit principles to estate claims (conferral of benefit))
Aultman Hosp. Assn v. Community Mut. Ins. Co., 46 Ohio St.3d 51 (1989) (quantum meruit defined; unjust enrichment principles apply)
In re Estate of Kirkland, 2008-Ohio-421 (2008) (quantum meruit and unjust enrichment interplay in estates)
Bldg. Industry Consultants, Inc. v. 3M Parkway, Inc., 182 Ohio App.3d 39 (2009-Ohio-1910) (elements of unjust enrichment mirror quantum meruit)