2020 Ohio 5424
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Dolores Gross died testate April 25, 2016; her will (Apr. 11, 2015) specifically bequeathed her engagement/wedding rings and certain diamond jewelry to her daughters Deborah, Wendy, and Linda.
- Jonathan Gross (appellant) was appointed durable power of attorney, moved in with the decedent near the end of her life, and claims the decedent made inter vivos gifts to him of a diamond ring and a diamond watch (Mar. 8, 2016) and gave him a $24,000 check (Apr. 7, 2016).
- The $24,000 check was not cashed or deposited before the decedent’s death; the probate court ordered the ring and watch delivered to counsel for safekeeping after the estate opened.
- Appellees (Deborah, Wendy, Linda, and the executor Beverly Resnick) filed for declaratory relief that the jewelry were estate assets under the will and that the $24,000 check was invalid (breach of fiduciary duty/undue influence/incapacity/settlement breach).
- The probate court granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment: (1) the check was an incomplete gift and revocable by the estate because it was not negotiated before death; (2) the jewelry were estate assets under the will and appellant failed to present clear, corroborated evidence of an inter vivos gift; trial court also noted fiduciary presumption/undue influence but did not rely solely on them.
- Appellant appealed, challenging the summary judgment and the denial of his Civ.R. 56(F) continuance request; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of $24,000 check as an inter vivos gift | Check was product of breach/undue influence and not a valid gift to Gross | Gross: decedent competent and intended immediate gift; he accepted the check | Held: check was not a completed gift because it was not cashed/accepted before death; estate could revoke it; summary judgment for appellees |
| Ownership of ring and watch (inter vivos gift vs. testamentary disposition) | Jewelry are estate assets per will and settlement agreement | Gross: decedent gifted ring and watch to him and later loaned them back to wear; he offered affidavits as proof | Held: will and settlement established ownership as estate assets; Gross’s self‑serving, uncorroborated affidavits insufficient to create genuine issue; summary judgment for appellees |
| Applicability of fiduciary presumption/undue influence/capacity issues | Appellees argued fiduciary relationship and possible undue influence supported invalidating gifts/check | Gross denied undue influence and asserted decedent’s competence | Held: court did not need to decide these alternative grounds because disposition of check and jewelry disposed of claims; summary judgment affirmed on primary grounds |
| Denial of Civ.R. 56(F) continuance | Gross sought more time to obtain depositions/medical and other evidence to oppose summary judgment | Appellees opposed; record showed Gross had ample time and did not explain why discovery was not done earlier | Held: trial court did not abuse its discretion denying the continuance; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment standard and when judgment is appropriate)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (Ohio 1987) (de novo review of summary‑judgment appeals)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (moving party’s initial burden and nonmoving party’s duty to produce evidentiary materials)
- State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 69 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1994) (elements and application of summary‑judgment standards)
- Smith v. Shafer, 89 Ohio App.3d 181 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993) (definition and elements of an inter vivos gift)
- Simmons v. Cincinnati Sav. Soc., 31 Ohio St. 457 (Ohio 1877) (a check does not complete a gift until accepted/paid)
- Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co., 132 Ohio St. 21 (Ohio 1936) (equity will not enforce an incomplete gift)
- DeLuca v. BancOhio Natl. Bank, Inc., 74 Ohio App.3d 233 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (a check is not an assignment of funds and remains revocable until accepted)
- Whiteleather v. Yosowitz, 10 Ohio App.3d 272 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (trial court should liberally grant continuances for discovery when genuine issues of material fact may exist)
- Ruwe v. Bd. of Twp. Trustees, 29 Ohio St.3d 59 (Ohio 1987) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for procedural rulings)