Poston Ex Rel. Poston v. Shelby-Love
2017 Ohio 6980
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Decedent Elise Poston opened a deferred fixed annuity IRA in 2009 and initially named her daughter Erin beneficiary; in 2012 she changed the beneficiary designation to make Erin and her sister Lori Shelby-Love coequal beneficiaries.
- Elise died in 2012; Erin and Love each received about $200,000 from the IRA. Elise’s life insurance paid $25,000 to Erin and $25,000 to Craig (Elise’s disabled son).
- Craig, who is severely disabled, was represented by his guardian Gregory Poston (Elise’s ex-husband) and sued Love in 2015 asserting undue influence, conversion, unjust enrichment/constructive trust, breach of oral contract, and seeking declaratory relief.
- Gregory’s theory: Elise intended Love to receive the IRA proceeds only to use them for Craig’s care; Love instead retained the funds for herself or distributed to others.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Love, finding no evidence of undue influence, conversion, or unjust enrichment; Gregory appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Undue influence — did Love improperly influence Elise to change the IRA beneficiary? | Gregory: Love manipulated/advised Elise to name her beneficiary and agreed to use proceeds for Craig. | Love: No involvement in Elise’s financial decisions; no evidence of susceptibility or improper conduct. | Court: No clear and convincing evidence of undue influence; summary judgment for Love. |
| Conversion — did Love wrongfully exercise dominion over property belonging to Craig? | Craig: He was entitled to IRA proceeds intended for his benefit. | Love: Craig was never a named beneficiary; IRA is nonprobate and never belonged to him. | Court: Conversion fails — Craig had no possessory interest in the IRA. |
| Unjust enrichment / constructive trust — did Love unjustly retain benefits that should go to Craig? | Gregory: Funds were meant for Craig’s care; retention by Love is unjust. | Love: No benefit was conferred by Craig to Love; no fraud or unjust enrichment shown. | Court: No evidence of benefit conferred or fraud; claim fails. |
| Declaratory judgment — should court declare the beneficiary change was not intended as a gift? | Gregory: Court should declare the designation was not a gift to prevent Love’s retention. | Love: No evidence to rebut that the designation was an outright beneficiary designation/gift. | Court: No evidence to support declaratory relief; summary judgment for Love. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (summary-judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (Civ.R. 56 summary-judgment criteria explained)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (standard for summary judgment stated)
- West v. Henry, 173 Ohio St. 498 (1962) (elements of undue influence)
- Kasick v. Kobela, 184 Ohio App.3d 433 (2009) (undue-influence must be shown by clear and convincing evidence)