In re Estate of Yeager
Appeals from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, Case Nos. 2014 EST 0176 and 2014 CVA 0009.
Judgment: Affirmed.
W.E. Gerstenslager, Gerstenslager & Obert Co., 6500 Creekside Trail, Solon, OH 44139 (For Appellants - Jeanette J. Sickle and Barbara L. Yeager).
Randil J. Rudloff, Guarnieri & Secrest, P.L.L., 151 East Market Street, P.O. Box 4270, Warren, OH 44482 (For Appellees - Howard A. Yeager, Jr., and Theresa M. Fox).
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.
{¶1} This appeal is taken from two separate judgments of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division. Appellants, Jeanette J. Sickle, et al., first challenge the probate court‘s judgment denying their
{¶3} Appellees filed an answer and discovery commenced. In June 2014, the probate court held a pretrial conference after which an order was issued setting a trial date of October 20, 2014. The parties had several discovery disputes, which eventuated in appellants filing two motions to compel discovery. The first motion was resolved by agreement; a hearing was held on the second motion, but appellants were unable to produce sufficient evidence for the court to enter a ruling. The court consequently dismissed the motion without prejudice, granting appellants leave to re-file “should they obtain evidence in support of the motion.”
{¶4} On October 16, 2014, appellees filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the testimony of appellants’ expert witness for failure to timely identify the expert. On the same day, appellants voluntarily dismissed their complaint pursuant to
{¶5} In the concurrent estate proceedings, Case No. 2014 EST 0176, captioned In re Estate of Dolores Yeager, Deceased, appellants moved for leave to file objections to the estate‘s inventory and sought to disqualify Attorney Thomas H. Palmer as Attorney for the Estate‘s executor, appellee-Howard A. Yeager. Because the time for filing a will contest action had lapsed and because appellants were not beneficiaries under the will, the trial court determined appellants lacked standing to proceed with the motions. Both pleadings were accordingly denied.
{¶6} The cases were consolidated on appeal and appellants now assign two errors for this court‘s review. For their first assignment of error, appellants allege:
{¶7} “The trial court erred and abused its discretion when it failed to consider the operative facts cited in appellants’ motion for relief from judgment without a hearing on the issues presented therein.”
{¶8} In Ohio, relief from a prior judgment can only be granted when the moving party has demonstrated she is entitled to relief under one of the five possible grounds stated in
{¶10} In this case, appellants’
{¶11}
{¶12} Because appellants’ voluntary dismissal was filed pursuant to
{¶13} Under the circumstances, appellants, after filing their voluntary dismissal, were barred by the applicable statute of limitations from filing a second complaint to contest the will. And, because their
{¶14} Appellants’ first assignment of error is without merit.
{¶15} For their second assignment of error, appellants assert:
{¶17}
{¶18} The question of standing depends upon whether a party has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy that the litigation will be pursued in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution. In re Estate of Sacco, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 03 CO 39, 2004-Ohio-3196, ¶18, citing State ex rel. Dallman v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 35 Ohio St.2d 176, 178-179 (1973). “When determining whether a party has standing, Ohio courts have applied the
{¶19} In this case, appellants claim they have an interest in certain property that should have been included in the inventory, but was not. Because, however, appellants do not stand to inherit anything through the decedent‘s will, it is unclear how they have a personal stake even if the items were included in the inventory. Moreover, if the property in which they claim to have an interest was excluded from the inventory, it follows that appellants may indeed have an independent interest in that property that would place the property outside decedent‘s estate. In any event, given their
{¶20} Appellants also claim the trial court erred in dismissing their motion to disqualify counsel. Appellants fail to provide any argumentation in support of this allegation, however. Thus, we need not specifically address the contention.
{¶21} Appellants’ second assignment of error is without merit.
{¶22} For the reasons discussed above, the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, is affirmed.
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.,
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.,
concur.