Ulinski v. Byers, 2015 Ohio 282

In 1993, Lewis and Gwendolyn Rader created the Rader Family Irrevocable Trust with Ulinski as trustee.
The trust named five grandchildren as Primary Beneficiaries and excluded two others; Ulinski read the trust to include all surviving grandchildren except the excluded two.
After the Raders’ deaths in 2011, the trust received about $250,000 from their life insurance policy.
Ulinski identified 26 surviving grandchildren (including Primary and Potential Beneficiaries) and informed them of their status as beneficiaries.
A 2013 declaratory-judgment action was filed to determine beneficiaries and distributions; Ulinski answered with cross-claims and third-party actions.
In 2013–2014, a settlement was reached in mediation providing $5,000 distributions to Potential Beneficiaries; Ulinski opposed the settlement but distributions proceeded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was removal of the trustee proper despite service defects?	Ulinski argues service was defective; court lacked authority to remove him.	Byers argues removal followed proper procedure and grounds exist for removal.	Removal affirmed; court may remove sua sponte despite service defects.
Did local Rule 57.1(C) timing bar removal before 14 days?	Ulinski contends premature ruling violated wait period.	Byers contends court acted within authority and process is satisfied by sua sponte action.	Court could remove despite 14-day window; sua sponte power applied.
Was an oral hearing required before removal?	Ulinski asserts due process required a hearing.	Byers argues hearing not mandatory where parties had opportunity to present evidence.	Due process satisfied; hearing not required given the record and opportunity to defend.
Was the $25,000 trust expenditure for a nationwide heir search properly considered?	Ulinski contends the amount was misstated and not solely for the search.	Byers argues substantial evidence showed mismanagement and unfitness to administer the trust.	Although the exact amount for search was disputed, the error was harmless given other evidence of unfitness.

In re Trust Estate of CNZ Trust, 2007-Ohio-2265 (9th Dist. Lorain No. 06CA008940 (2007)) (probate court may remove fiduciary on proper showing; strict service not fatal if right to defend is preserved)
In re Estate of Howard, 2006-Ohio-2176 (9th Dist. Lorain No. 05CA008730 (2006)) (due process may require a hearing; probate court has inherent removal power)
Tomazic v. Rapoport, 2012-Ohio-4402 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97937 (2012)) (court may hear evidence on fiduciary administration even if no formal motion)
Pla v. Wivell, 2011-Ohio-5637 (9th Dist. Summit No. 25814 (2011)) (proper service is mandatory; procedural defects do not automatically negate relief)