Zimmerman v. Dillon, 2025 Ohio 3157

Background

Decedent created the Donald M. Zimmerman Trust; a 2022 amendment named Paige Zimmerman and John Dillon co-successor trustees and directed distribution of tangible personal property and separate trusts for descendants.
After Decedent’s death, Dillon opened Trust bank accounts with statements addressed to him and had sole online access; he primarily managed Trust checking.
Dillon engaged contractor James Carnes for home renovations, paid invoices largely by writing checks from the Trust to himself, cashing them, and giving cash to Carnes; no receipts or adequate records were kept.
Paige questioned expenditures in mid-2023, retained counsel, and instructed Dillon to obtain her approval for further disbursements; Dillon nonetheless withdrew $9,877 and paid Carnes and also paid himself an unauthorized $3,500 trustee fee.
Probate court found Dillon breached fiduciary duties (failed to keep records, failed to protect trust property, unauthorized payments), removed him as co‑trustee, ordered an accounting, and awarded Paige $13,377 (breach damages), $40,000 for two bathroom repairs, attorney fees $75,701.55, and costs $5,334.10.
On appeal, the Fifth District affirmed in full; Paige’s cross-appeal was deemed untimely and not considered.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dillon breached the trust by failing to administer and account for Trust assets	Paige: Dillon failed to keep accurate records, failed to verify invoices, used an unusual cash-payment scheme, made unauthorized disbursements and thus breached duties under Ohio Trust Code	Dillon: He managed the Trust in good faith, Paige was aware of renovations and payments, and any errors were non‑material or not breaches	Court: Affirmed breach — competent, credible evidence showed failures to keep records, protect trust property, and unauthorized payments; breach need not be willful
Whether Dillon failed to provide a proper accounting	Paige: She was denied access and received no invoices until July 2023; spreadsheets lacked supporting documentation	Dillon: Provided spreadsheets and argued the accounting was adequate or that Paige knew expenditures	Court: Affirmed failure — records/spreadsheets were confusing/inaccurate and absent receipts, making a full accounting impossible
Whether $40,000 for repairs to two bathrooms was an excessive damages award	Paige: Sought repair costs; presented contractor expert estimating $130,000 for all bathrooms and $40,000 for two	Dillon: Argued the court erred or relied on an unreliable/new estimate and that repairs should cost less	Court: Affirmed $40,000 — trial court held a damages hearing, credited plaintiff’s expert for the two-bathroom award and rejected higher/all-bathroom request
Whether awarding $75,701.55 in attorney fees and $5,334.10 costs was improper	Paige: Fees are recoverable under R.C. 5810.04 where equitable relief sought and prevailing party methodically pursued claims	Dillon: Fees excessive compared to compensatory damages and some billed items unreasonable	Court: Affirmed fees/costs — award reviewed for abuse of discretion; court reduced requested amount and applied Rule 1.5 factors, fee award not required to be proportional to damages

Key Cases Cited

C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (judgment supported by competent, credible evidence will not be reversed as against the manifest weight)
Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (trial judge best positioned to assess witness credibility)
Shuster v. N. Am. Mtge. Loan Co., 139 Ohio St. 315 (1942) (breach of trust includes omission or commission violating fiduciary duties)
Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 143 (1991) (attorney‑fee awards need not be proportional to damages)
In re Estate of Verbeck, 173 Ohio St. 557 (1962) (attorney fees must be based on actual services and reasonable value)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard defined)