{¶ 2} Joseph R. Okos died testate on September 1, 2002. He had no surviving spouse. He is survived by three children: appellees Joseph E. Okos, Rachel L. Szykowny, and Amy L. Okos. Appellant, Robert Bugg, alleges hе is also a child of decedent, born out of wedlock. Decedent's will was admitted to probate. Appellee Donald M. Farley was appointed executor of decedent's estate. Decedent's will left his entire estate to his son, Joseph E. Okos.
{¶ 3} Appellant filed a complaint on January 17, 2003, against appellees Farley, Joseph E. Okos, Szykowny, Amy L. Okos and Dawn M. Okos to contest the will. Appellant alleged he was a beneficiary under a subsequent will and next of kin of the deсedent. Appellees responded with a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Appellees argued that appellant was not an interested party under R.C.
{¶ 4} On May 28, 2003, appellant filed an amended complaint with an attached document he alleged to be a prior will naming him as a beneficiary.1 This document was handwritten. It did not name an executor, was not signed by the decedent, and it was not attested by witnesses.
{¶ 5} Appellees again moved tо dismiss the amended complaint for lack of standing because appellant had not been legitimized during the life of the dеcedent. They also argued, and the Probate Court ruled, that appellant had failed to make a prima facie case as to the validity of the document attached to the amended complaint, because it was neither executed nor attested. Since appellant had failed to make a case that he was a beneficiary under a prior valid will, the trial court ruled he had not established himself as an interested party who had standing to contest the will. The trial court granted appellees' motion to dismiss. This appeal followed.
{¶ 6} In a single assignment of error, appellant asserts that the dismissal of his will contest for want of standing is erroneous.
{¶ 7} A motion to dismiss for lack of standing is treated as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12. A-1 Nursing Care ofCleveland, Inc. v. Florence Nightingale Nursing, Inc. (1994),
{¶ 8} A person interested in a will may contest it under R.C.
{¶ 9} An illegitimate child cannot inherit from his natural father in Ohio unless the father has taken steps during his lifetime to pеrmit inheritance. Inheritance rights may be conferred by: (1) formal acknowledgement in probate court by the father that thе child is his; (2) designating the child as his heir at law pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 10} Appellant alleges he was made a beneficiary in a prior will which was attached to his amended complaint. Under R.C.
{¶ 11} Appellant has not made a prima facie case that there is a prior valid will. Therefore, he cannot establish that his natural father made provisions for him to inherit. He is not a person interested in decedent's will because he has no interest that will be impaired or defeated by admitting the will to probate. Hence, appellant does not have standing to contest decedent's will. Accordingly, appellant's sole аssignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 12} On consideration, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to apрellant.
Judgment Affirmed.
Handwork, P.J., Knepper, J., Singer, J., concur.
Notes
{¶ b} "When an original will is lost, spoliated, or destroyed before or after the death of a testator, thе probate court shall admit the lost, spoliated, or destroyed will to probate if both of the following apply:
{¶ c} "(A) The proponent of the will establishes by clear and convincing evidence both of the following:
{¶ d}
"(1) The will was executed with the fоrmalities required at the time of execution by the jurisdiction in which it was executed.
{¶ e} "(2) The contents of the will.
{¶ f} "(B) No person opposing the admission of the will to probate establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the testator had revoked the will."