SARUNAS V. ABRAITIS, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF VLADA SOFIJA STANCIKAITE ABRAITIS v. LAURA J. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
No. 101037
Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
July 2, 2014
2014-Ohio-2987
Writ of Prohibition Motion No. 473884 Order No. 475487
JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED
Catherine M. Brady
4417 W. 189th Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44135
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Charles E. Hannan
Assistant County Prosecutor
8th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} Relator, Sarunas V. Abraitis, in his individual capacity and his capacity as Executor of the Estate of Vlada Sofija Stancikaite Abraitis1 (collectively referred to as “Abraitis” or relator herein), filed a complaint seeking a writ that prohibits respondent, Judge Laura J. Gallagher, from acting in the matter of Vivian Abraitis-Newcomer, Personal Representative of the Estate of Vytautas T. Abraitis v. Sarunas V. Abraitis, Cuyahoga C.P. Probate No. 2014 ADV 19500 (the “Probate Court Action“), based on an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss that the relator has opposed. The respondent‘s motion is granted for the reasons that follow.
Facts
{¶2} Relator is the fiduciary for the Estate of his mother, Vlada Sofija Stancikaite Abraitis (“Vlada“), who died on December 16, 2008. Vivian Abraitis-Newcomer (“Newcomer“) is the fiduciary for the estate of Vytautas T. Abraitis (“Vytautas“), who was relator‘s brother and also Vlada‘s son.2
{¶3} Vlada‘s will, dated June 30, 1978, was admitted to probate on October 4, 2011. Relator and Vytautas were the sole and equal beneficiaries under that will because
{¶4} The Probate Court Action, filed on January 13, 2014, involves a complaint filed on behalf of Vytautas‘s estate for a will contest and declaratory judgment, which petitions the court for relief, including a request for an order to set aside the alleged Last Will and Testament of Vlada Sofija Abraitis, dated January 8, 1993, as void and a declaration that a certain survivorship deed is invalid. In addition to being the personal representative for Vytautas‘s estate, Newcomer is also the former wife of Vytautas and the sole beneficiary of his estate. Vytautas and Newcomer did not have any children together. Newcomer later married David Fuller Newcomer (“David“). Relator avers that Vytautas moved to Florida in 2006 to help care for David after a household accident. Vytautas reportedly lived with the Newcomers and paid them rent until he died.
{¶5} Relator commenced this action asserting that the probate court lacks jurisdiction to act in the Probate Court Action because, he maintains, Newcomer is without standing to maintain it.
Analysis
{¶7} Prohibition does not lie unless it clearly appears that the court possesses no jurisdiction of the cause that it is attempting to adjudicate or the court is about to exceed its jurisdiction. State ex rel. Ellis v. McCabe, 138 Ohio St. 417, 35 N.E.2d 571 (1941). Also, prohibition will not issue to prevent an erroneous judgment, or serve the purpose of an appeal, or to correct errors committed by the lower court in deciding questions within its jurisdiction. State ex rel. Sparto v. Juvenile Court of Darke Cty., 153 Ohio St. 64, 90 N.E.2d 598 (1950). Furthermore, prohibition should be used with great caution and not issue in doubtful cases. State ex rel. Merion v. Tuscarawas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 137 Ohio St. 273, 28 N.E.2d 641 (1940).
{¶8} However, when a court is patently and unambiguously without jurisdiction to act, the existence of an adequate remedy at law will not prevent the issuance of a writ of prohibition. Zitter, 106 Ohio St.3d 87, 2005-Ohio-3804, 831 N.E.2d 1003, ¶ 16.
{¶9} Relator maintains that respondent lacks subject matter jurisdiction to act in the Probate Court Action. Specifically, he maintains that respondent patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction based on Newcomer‘s alleged lack of standing. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the probate court has the statutory and exclusive jurisdiction to determine the action and maintains that relator has an adequate remedy at law.
{¶10} The probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction and its proceedings are restricted to those permitted by statute and by the constitution. State ex rel. Lee v. Trumbull Cty. Probate Court, 83 Ohio St.3d 369, 372, 700 N.E.2d 4 (1998). Newcomer commenced the Probate Court Action to contest a will and obtain a declaratory judgment. Relator does not dispute that the court has basic statutory jurisdiction over the action pursuant to
{¶12} Relator first maintains that respondent has not adequately established the probate court‘s jurisdiction to act with regard to each claim in the Probate Court Action. However, the declaratory judgment and the will contest are part of the same complaint and, with regard to Newcomer‘s standing, they are interrelated and involve a similar factual analysis. Both with regard to the declaratory judgment and the will contest, the parties focus on debating whether Newcomer is an interested party within the context of the applicable statutes.
{¶13}
Any person interested as or through an executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary, creditor, devisee, legatee, heir, next of kin, or cestui que trust, in the administration of a trust, or of the estate of a decedent, an infant, an incompetent person, or an insolvent person, may have a declaration of rights or legal relations in respect thereto in any of the following cases:
(A) To ascertain any class of creditors, devisees, legatees, heirs, next of kin, or others;
(B) To direct the executors, administrators, trustees, or other fiduciaries to do or abstain from doing any particular act in their fiduciary capacity;
(C) To determine any question arising in the administration of the estate or trust, including questions of construction of wills and other writings.
{¶14}
(A) A person interested in a will or codicil admitted to probate in the probate court that has not been declared valid by judgment of a probate court pursuant to section 2107.084 of the Revised Code or that has been declared valid by judgment of a probate court pursuant to section 2107.084 of the Revised Code but has been removed from the possession of the probate judge, may contest its validity by filing a complaint in the probate court in the county in which the will or codicil was admitted to probate.
{¶15} “An interested party has been defined as: ‘any person who has such a direct, immediate and legally ascertained pecuniary interest in the devolution of the testator‘s estate as would be impaired or defeated by the probate of the will, or be benefitted by setting aside the will * * *.‘” In re Estate of Scanlon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95264, 2011-Ohio-1097, ¶ 12, citing, York v. Nunley, 80 Ohio App.3d 697, 610 N.E.2d 576 (8th Dist.1992), quoting Bloor v. Platt, 78 Ohio St. 46, 49-50, 84 N.E. 604 (1908).
{¶16} Newcomer is the fiduciary of Vytautas‘s estate and, under Ohio law, “an administrator of an estate functions in a fiduciary capacity and, pursuant to
{¶17} “We need not rule on the merits of [these jurisdictional claims], because our duty is limited to determining whether jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously lacking.” Goldberg v. Maloney, 111 Ohio St.3d 211, 2006-Ohio-5485, 855 N.E.2d 856, ¶ 45, quoting Zitter, 106 Ohio St.3d 87, 2005-Ohio-3804, 831 N.E.2d 1003, ¶ 28. Relator can pursue an appeal of the trial court‘s ruling on Newcomer‘s standing and, therefore, has an adequate remedy at law. Because Newcomer has an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal, which is not contested, relief through an original action is inappropriate. E.g., In re Scanlon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95264, 2011-Ohio-1097; see also State ex rel. Davet v. Sutula, 131 Ohio St.3d 220, 2012-Ohio-759, 963 N.E.2d 811, ¶ 2.
{¶18} Respondent‘s motion is granted.
{¶20} Complaint dismissed.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR