425 N.E.2d 905 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1979
The appellant, Eileen M. O'Ferrell (Eileen Marie Adams Helwig), brings her appeal from the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Probate Division, which, by entry on November 1, 1977, found as follows:
"1. That Article
"2. That Section
"3. That the property passes as if the former spouse *8 (Eileen Marie Adams [Helwig]) failed to survive the decedent and Ferdinand R. Buehler takes under Item V of the Will. . . ."
Appellant assigns a single error, subdivided into three parts, which essentially argues as follows: that the Probate Court erred to the prejudice of the appellant in holding that Section
The salient facts insofar as they are necessary for a determination of this cause reveal that the appellant married the deceased, Arthur Louis Helwig, in March 1961. The testator made his last will and testament on November 5, 1973, designating his then wife, the appellant herein, as the principal beneficiary. On October 5, 1974, the deceased and appellant were divorced and the decree incorporated a separation agreement executed by the parties on September 24, 1974. R. C.
We address ourselves first to what we perceive to be appellant's principal contention and one which we consider to be dispositive of this appeal: The trial court erred in holding that R. C.
The pertinent part of Section
"The general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts; * * *."
We hold that the trial court did not err in holding that R. C.
"If after executing a will, a testator is divorced, obtains a *9 dissolution of marriage, or has his marriage annulled, or upon actual separation from his spouse, enters into a separation agreement whereby the parties intend to fully and finally settle their prospective property rights in the property of the other, whether by expected inheritance or otherwise, any disposition or appointment of property made by the will to the former spouse, any provision in the will conferring a general or special power of appointment on the former spouse, and any nomination in the will of the former spouse as executor, trustee, or guardian, shall be revoked unless the will expressly provides otherwise."
A beneficiary under a will, until the death of the testator, has nothing more than a mere expectation of receiving property from the testator and such expectation is not protected by Section
From what has been said above it follows that the Probate Court did not err in refusing to hear testimony relating to the intent of the testator. The will, as made in 1973, insofar as it related to the appellant was revoked by operation of the statute (R. C.
For the reasons given above, the assignment of error is overruled.
The assignment of error properly before this court having been ruled upon as heretofore set forth, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order herein appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
BETTMAN, P. J., CASTLE and BLACK, JJ., concur. *11