In re Estate of Lucas
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Robert G. Hanseman, Lewis, Huffman
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on October 2, 2026, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Costs to be paid as stated in
Pursuant to Ohio
For the court,
ROBERT G. HANSEMAN, JUDGE
LEWIS, P.J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur.
HANSEMAN, J.
{¶ 1} Worrell A. Reid, who is the former administrator of the Estate of Randall Lucas (“the estate“), appeals from the Montgomery County Probate Court‘s judgment removing him as the administrator of the estate. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the probate court is affirmed.
Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} Randall Lucas (“the decedent“) died intestate on December 16, 2021. The decedent was a businessman who owned several vehicles and parcels of real estate that were rental properties. The decedent also owned two limited liability companies (“LLCs“)—5 Star Investments, LLC, and R.E. Lucas Trucking, LLC. The LLCs owned several vehicles and several parcels of real estate as well. The decedent was the sole member of the LLCs.
{¶ 3} The decedent‘s estate was opened in the probate court in March 2022. On June 13, 2022, the probate court appointed Reid, an attorney, as the administrator of the estate. Reid‘s administration involved the determination of heirship, management and liquidation of the estate‘s assets, and correspondence with the heirs and their representatives. After Reid filed a complaint to determine heirship, which was the subject of Reid v. Williams, 2024-Ohio-3332 (2d Dist.), the probate court identified thirteen heirs who were entitled to inherit from the estate. Six of the thirteen heirs were minors for whom guardian ad litems (“GALs“) were appointed. There is no dispute that the decedent‘s estate was very complex given the large amount of assets and heirs.
{¶ 5} During the hearing, Newsome called Reid to testify about the estate and his conduct as administrator. After Reid testified, five of the decedent‘s adult heirs testified pro se and complained about Reid‘s lack of communication and how he was handling the estate. Reid then attempted to call Newsome to testify, but Newsome objected since he was not a party to the action. After giving Reid an opportunity to explain why he wanted to call Newsome to testify, the probate court found that Newsome‘s testimony would involve privileged attorney-client or work-product information. Accordingly, the probate court sustained Newsome‘s objection and prohibited Reid from calling Newsome as a witness. The probate court did, however, allow Reid to proffer the exhibits and information that he wanted to elicit from Newsome.
{¶ 6} Following the removal hearing, on March 6, 2026, the probate court issued an order and entry granting Newsome‘s motion to remove Reid as the estate‘s administrator. Reid now appeals from that judgment and raises two assignments of error for review.
First Assignment of Error
{¶ 7} Under his first assignment of error, Reid contends that the probate court‘s judgment removing him as administrator was an abuse of discretion and contrary to law. We disagree.
{¶ 8} The probate court removed Reid under the authority of
{¶ 9} “‘The removal of the fiduciary, pursuant to
{¶ 10} The probate court cited various reasons for removing Ried under the authority of
1. Failed to Timely File an Inventory and Account
{¶ 11} After appointing Reid as the estate‘s administrator, the probate court granted Reid an extension of time to file the estate‘s inventory and ordered the inventory to be filed by November 14, 2022. The probate court then granted Reid a second extension to file the inventory by January 16, 2023. Reid did not request any further extensions yet filed the inventory on June 12, 2023—almost five months past the due date of the last extension granted. Accordingly, the record establishes that the inventory was untimely.
{¶ 12} Reid also failed to file a timely account. Prior to the inventory being filed, on January 3, 2023, the probate court issued an order and citation to show cause for Reid‘s failure to file an account within the time prescribed by law. The probate court ordered an account to be approved for filing before the show-cause hearing, which was scheduled for February 13, 2023. At the show-cause hearing, the probate court granted Reid an extension of 120 days to file an account and continued the hearing to July 17, 2023. At the second show-cause hearing, the probate court granted Reid a second extension—45 days—to file an account and continued the hearing to September 11, 2023. The third show-cause hearing never transpired. On July 26, 2023, the probate court issued an order dismissing its order and citation to show cause because multiple heirs had filed objections to the June 12, 2023,
{¶ 13} By January 17, 2025, all objections to the inventory had been withdrawn, yet Reid did not file an account until August 22, 2025. The first account Reid filed was a partial account covering the first 13 months of Reid‘s administration (June 13, 2022, to July 11, 2023). On September 23, 2025, Reid filed a second partial account covering the following 18 months of his administration (July 12, 2023, to January 1, 2025).
{¶ 14} To justify the delay in filing the accounts, Reid claims that the objections were not officially resolved until the inventory was approved by the probate court. Even if we were to accept that argument, the record indicates that the inventory was approved on April 21, 2025, and that Reid did not file the first partial account until four months later. In any event, the statutes governing inventories and accounts do not require inventory approval as a prerequisite to filing an account. See
{¶ 15} For the foregoing reasons, it was reasonable for the probate court to conclude that Reid had failed to timely file the estate‘s inventory and accounts, and for the court to consider that failure when deciding to remove Reid under the authority of
2. Engaged in Unauthorized Conduct
{¶ 16} The decedent owned, among other things, several parcels of real estate that were rental properties. Pursuant to
{¶ 17} If the executor or administrator is granted authority under
{¶ 18} An application for the authority granted under
{¶ 19} On June 9, 2023, the probate court magistrate found that Reid‘s application for authority under
{¶ 20} The record establishes that Reid did not resubmit the application as instructed by the probate court and never obtained the probate court‘s authority to manage the decedent‘s real estate. Despite this, Reid admitted at the removal hearing that he, with the help of the decedent‘s brother, a non-heir, collected rent, paid for repairs, purchased insurance, and paid real estate taxes for the real estate in question. In other words, Reid managed the real property even though he had not obtained the probate court‘s authorization as required by
{¶ 21} We also note that Reid failed to make an accounting of the rents and expenditures as required by
{¶ 22} Reid also applied for authority to assume the rights and duties commensurate with the decedent‘s membership interest in the two LLCs for the purpose of settling the estate. This application was made under
{¶ 23}
{¶ 24} In this case, Reid was appointed as administrator on June 13, 2022. Reid filed his application for authority to assume the decedent‘s membership rights and duties in the LLCs eight and a half months later on February 23, 2023, which is four and a half months beyond the four-month period that he was permitted to continue the decedent‘s businesses. Therefore, Reid did not have authority to operate the decedent‘s businesses during that four-and-a-half-month period, yet the record indicates that he continued to do so. Also, during that time, Reid never filed any monthly reports, as required by
{¶ 25} On June 9, 2023, the probate court magistrate denied Reid‘s application for authority to manage the decedent‘s LLCs. The magistrate found that Reid was asking for authority to operate the LLCs when it was actually his duty to wind them up pursuant to
{¶ 27} For all the foregoing reasons, it was reasonable for the probate court to conclude that Reid had engaged in unauthorized conduct and for the court to consider that conduct when deciding to remove him under the authority of
3. Attempt to Convey Real Estate to One Heir
{¶ 28} “‘It is the duty of a fiduciary of an estate to serve as representative of the entire estate. Such fiduciary, in the administration of an estate, owes a duty to beneficiaries to act in a manner which protects the beneficiaries’ interests.‘” Wanamaker v. Davis, 2007-Ohio-4340, ¶ 20 (2d Dist.), quoting Elam v. Hyatt Legal Servs., 44 Ohio St.3d 175, 176 (1989).
{¶ 29} In this case, the record indicates that Reid filed a declaratory action to have a parcel of the decedent‘s real estate transferred to one heir, Ciara Watson, to the exclusion of the other 12 heirs. Ried claimed that he did this because all of the heirs had allegedly told him that the real estate in question was Watson‘s home and that Watson had paid for the property even though the legal title to the property was in the decedent‘s name. Although Reid eventually dismissed the declaratory action under
4. Failed to Conduct Requisite Appraisals of LLCs
{¶ 30} The inventory filed by Reid on June 12, 2023, valued the decedent‘s two LLCs at $610,960.00 and $85,605.12. Reid explained that these figures were based on court-approved valuations, not appraisals. Accordingly, the inventory only accounted for the assets of the LLCs and did not include their debts and expenses. On February 3, 2026, two years and seven months after the inventory was filed, Reid notified the probate court that he had recently received a U.S. Department of Treasury claim pertaining to a $231,705.41 outstanding debt owed by 5 Star Investments, LLC, which Reid believed to be a COVID loan. Reid advised that he was not previously aware of the claim. Under these circumstances, it was reasonable for the probate court to find that an appraisal of the LLCs was required to determine the LLCs’ values and that Reid‘s failure to have the LLCs appraised was a breach of his fiduciary duty as administrator and was a basis for removal under
{¶ 31} Because the record established that Reid had failed to timely file an inventory and account, engaged in unauthorized conduct, attempted to convey away real estate for the benefit of one heir, and failed to conduct requisite appraisals for the decedent‘s LLCs, we do not find that the probate court abused its discretion by removing Reid as administrator of the estate under the authority of
Reid‘s Removal Was Not Contrary to Law
{¶ 32} Reid claims that the probate court‘s decision to remove him was contrary to
{¶ 33} Under
{¶ 34} Although
{¶ 35} Reid‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 36} Under his second assignment of error, Reid claims that the probate court erred when it prohibited him from calling Newsome to testify as a witness at the removal hearing. Newsome is the GAL who filed the motion for Reid‘s removal as administrator. Newsome objected to Reid calling him to testify, and the probate court sustained the objection.
{¶ 37} “Evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the trial court and its decision in such matters will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” In re Priser, 2004-Ohio-1315, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Maupin, 42 Ohio St.2d 473 (1975), and State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987); Ward v. Grounds, 2026-Ohio-2005, ¶ 10 (2d Dist.). “A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is ‘“unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.”‘” Sullivan, 2021-Ohio-1117 at ¶ 7 (2d Dist.), quoting Bissell, 2016-Ohio-3086, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.), quoting AAAA, 50 Ohio St.3d at 161.
{¶ 38} In this case, Reid claims that Newsome should have been required to testify at the removal hearing because former
{¶ 40} After sustaining Newsome‘s objection to testifying, the probate court allowed Reid to proffer the exhibits he wanted to present through Newsome. Reid first proffered the fiduciary‘s acceptance, which is a document that had already been filed and made part of the record on March 24, 2022. Reid next proffered three documents from related cases showing that Reid had obtained judgment entries vesting real property back to the estate and that he had filed a complaint to determine heirship. Newsome, however, was not a party to any of those actions and therefore had no personal knowledge of them. Reid, who was a party to those actions, could have authenticated all the proffered exhibits through his own testimony, meaning that the proffered exhibits could have been presented without Newsome testifying. Accordingly, Reid did not suffer any prejudice as a result of Newsome not testifying at the removal hearing.
{¶ 41} Under the foregoing circumstances, we cannot say that the probate court abused its discretion when it prohibited Reid from calling Newsome to testify at the removal hearing.
{¶ 42} Reid‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 43} Having overruled both of Reid‘s assignments of error, the judgment of the probate court is affirmed.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
LEWIS, P.J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur.