Powell v. Williams, 2022 Ohio 526

Decedent died testate (will dated May 29, 2018) naming son Eric Brandon Williams as executor and sole primary beneficiary; three minor children and any children of Williams were contingent beneficiaries.
Sophia and Tiffany Powell (appellants) sued to contest the will, claiming they are the decedent’s daughters and alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by Williams.
Appellants asked the probate court to order genetic testing (including of Williams) to establish paternity so they could claim intestate shares if the will were set aside; Williams denied their allegations.
Probate court denied the genetic-testing request and dismissed the will contest, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate parentage under R.C. Chapter 3111 because the Parentage Act’s statute of limitations (five years after reaching majority, i.e., by age 23) had passed for the appellants; therefore they were not “persons interested” with standing under R.C. 2107.71(A).
On appeal the Powells raised an equal-protection challenge to Ohio’s parentage/statute-of-limitations scheme; the court found the constitutional argument waived for failure to raise it below and noted Ohio precedent upholding the statutory scheme; one judge dissented urging an extended limitations period for adult natural-born children.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probate court erred by denying DNA testing and treating the matter as a parentage action	Powells: testing was necessary to prove paternity so they could inherit if will invalidated	Williams: parentage claim is time-barred under R.C. 3111.05; probate court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate parentage now	Court: Affirmed denial — parentage claim is time‑barred; probate court lacked jurisdiction to order testing as part of will contest
Whether appellants had standing to contest the will as “persons interested”	Powells: they are decedent’s biological children and would inherit if will set aside, so they have standing	Williams: they are not named beneficiaries and cannot establish parent-child relationship due to statute of limitations	Court: No standing — appellants are not persons interested because they cannot now establish parentage to invoke intestate rights
Whether Ohio’s Parentage Act/statute of limitations violates Equal Protection	Powells: the limitations scheme discriminates against illegitimate adult children and denies equal protection	Williams: (and record) reliance on statutory limits and existing precedent; probate court not presented with detailed constitutional challenge	Court: Constitutional claim waived for failure to raise below; in any event Ohio precedent has upheld the statutory scheme, so no relief

State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1986) (failure to raise constitutional issue below constitutes waiver)
White v. Randolph, 59 Ohio St.2d 6 (Ohio 1979) (upholding interstate inheritance limitations for illegitimate children under Ohio law)
Brookbank v. Gray, 74 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1996) (distinguishing wrongful-death equal-protection claims from inheritance/parentage schemes)
Wright v. Oliver, 35 Ohio St.3d 10 (Ohio 1988) (upholding R.C. 3111.05 five‑year post‑majority limitations period)
Corron v. Corron, 40 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1988) (probate court is a court of limited statutory jurisdiction)
Mills v. Habluetzel, 456 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1982) (limitations‑period equal‑protection analysis referenced for parentage statutes)
Pickett v. Brown, 462 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (limitations‑period due‑process/equal‑protection context referenced)