2013 Ohio 3025
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Ralph Phillips executed a will and an Amended and Restated Trust (12/19/2001); he died on September 8, 2009. His daughter Angela Deskin was named trustee and executor.
- Plaintiffs (Angela’s sisters Monica Phillips, Annette Phillips, Kimberly Leland) sued Angela individually and in her trustee/executor capacities (complaint filed July 13, 2012). Remedies sought included declaratory relief, constructive trust, accounting, trust construction, damages for intentional interference with an inheritance expectancy, and fraud.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6) arguing probate court had exclusive jurisdiction. The common pleas court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs moved under Civ.R. 60(B) to have the dismissal changed to without prejudice; the trial court denied relief. Plaintiffs appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo whether any cognizable cause of action was pled and evaluated which counts fall within probate-court jurisdiction versus the general division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts seeking declaratory relief and constructive trust (Count I) belong in probate or general division | Declaratory and constructive-trust relief sought remedies for misallocation/retitling of corporate shares and trust benefits, not a dispute over trust wording, so general division jurisdiction is proper | Probate court has authority over trusts/estate-related controversies; probate is the proper forum | Reversed dismissal as to Count I: declaratory and constructive-trust claims (as pleaded) are within common pleas general-division jurisdiction (not probate) |
| Whether tort claims for intentional interference with inheritance expectancy and fraud (Counts III & V) must be brought in probate first | Plaintiffs alleged pre-death misconduct by Angela in her individual capacity causing lost inheritance expectancy; probate remedies would be inadequate | Defendant argued plaintiffs must exhaust probate remedies and probate could resolve the dispute (citing exhaustion rule) | Reversed dismissal as to Counts III & V: tort/fraud claims against Angela individually are cognizable in general division (probate exhaustion inapplicable on these facts) |
| Whether accounting and trust-construction claims (Counts II & IV) belong in general or probate court | Plaintiffs pleaded post-death actions as executor/successor trustee that relate to estate administration | Defendant argued these issues are probate matters | Affirmed dismissal as to Counts II & IV: accounting and trust-construction claims concern estate administration and belong in probate court |
| Whether dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction should have been with prejudice | Plaintiffs argued dismissal for lack of jurisdiction cannot be with prejudice and trial court erred by ruling on 12(B)(6) after 12(B)(1) | Defendant did not effectively dispute that dismissal-with-prejudice was improper when for lack of jurisdiction | Appellate court held trial court erred to the extent it dismissed with prejudice or made additional 12(B)(6) rulings after finding lack of jurisdiction; dismissal should be without prejudice for jurisdictional grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bush v. Spurlock, 42 Ohio St.3d 77 (probate-limited jurisdiction principle cited for subject-matter analysis)
- Shockey v. Fouty, 106 Ohio App.3d 420 (standard of review for Civ.R. 12(B)(1) de novo review)
- Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56 (accept factual allegations as true on jurisdictional review)
- Corron v. Corron, 40 Ohio St.3d 75 (probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction; declaratory relief appropriate only when affecting estate administration)
- Bishop v. Bishop, 188 Ohio App.3d 98 (probate court lacks plenary authority to impose constructive trusts for the benefit of third parties)
- In re Estate of Etzensperger, 9 Ohio St.3d 19 (probate court exceeded authority when impressing a constructive trust outside probate jurisdiction)
- Roll v. Edwards, 156 Ohio App.3d 227 (intentional-interference tort not necessarily cognizable in probate; probate power is plenary only over matters properly before it)