Mackay v. Thomas
121 N.E.3d 814
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- William and Clara Thomas (married) had 2010 wills/trusts leaving William’s residuary estate to a trust for Clara’s benefit; William died September 9, 2014.
- In mid‑2014 William discussed a new estate plan with Ohio attorney E.K. Wright; a draft 2014 will (with a pour‑over clause to a trust) was left with William in the hospital but Clara admitted she destroyed that draft as inaccurate; no trust instrument was ever completed.
- William’s 2010 will was admitted in Lee County, Florida probate; probate assets were transferred to the 2010 trust and withdrawn by Clara under its withdrawal power.
- William’s relatives (Appellants: Kerissa, Katherine, Conrad, Rowan Mackay) sued Clara in Tuscarawas C.P. asserting intentional interference with expectancy of inheritance, constructive trust, declaratory judgment, accounting, fraudulent transfer, and punitive damages.
- Clara moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing the amended complaint failed to state a viable claim (pour‑over trust was not in writing/executed) and that claims were barred by Florida probate/res judicata; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed; appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of intentional‑interference claim | Appellants: Clara destroyed the 2014 will draft and prevented execution of the testator’s planned pour‑over to a trust, so they had an expectancy and alleged interference | Clara: No written/trust instrument existed; pour‑over statute requires a written trust; even but‑for interference, intestacy rules would make Clara inheritor, so expectancy not reasonably certain | Court: Claim fails — no written/existing trust and therefore no reasonable certainty the expectancy would be realized; judgment for Clara |
| Whether Florida probate/res judicata barred claims | Appellants: Florida probate could not adjudicate these claims because they lacked standing to pursue them there | Clara: Florida probate and res judicata bar a collateral action challenging probate distributions | Court: Did not reach on merits (moot) because first issue dispositive |
| Viability of derivative claims (constructive trust, accounting, etc.) | Appellants: These claims depend on the interference claim and should survive if interference found | Clara: Claims are derivative and fail if interference claim fails | Court: Derivative claims fail along with the intentional‑interference claim; judgment for Clara |
Key Cases Cited
- Firestone v. Galbreath, 67 Ohio St.3d 87 (1993) (defines elements of intentional interference with expectancy of inheritance)
- Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161 (1973) (standard of review for motions under Civ.R. 12(C)/(B)(6))
- Rich v. Erie County Department of Human Resources, 106 Ohio App.3d 88 (1995) (appellate review de novo of judgment on the pleadings)
- Conant v. Johnson, 1 Ohio App.2d 133 (1964) (pleading/inference rules on motions for judgment on the pleadings)
- Nelson v. Pleasant, 73 Ohio App.3d 479 (1991) (limiting review on judgment on the pleadings to the face of the complaint)
- Knowles v. Knowles, 4 Ohio Misc. 153 (1965) (pour‑over bequest fails without a trust instrument and residue descends by intestacy)