{¶ 2} Appellee, Harry G. Beyoglides, Jr., an attorney, was appointed guardian of the estate of Robert C. Lewis in 1989. Beyoglides was allowed and paid fees as guardian several times during the term of the guardianship. Following the ward's death, Beyoglides filed a final account in which, as guardian, he sought approval for payment of legal fees to himself for services he performed as attorney for the guardian.
{¶ 3} The guardian's final account was approvеd by the Probate Court on September 4, 2001. Beyoglides was paid $12,854.54, pursuant to the court's approval, as and for legal fees.
{¶ 4} Several years after Mr. Lewis's death and the Probate Court's approval of the guardian's final account, a son of the deceased applied for authority to administer Mr. Lewis's estate, and was duly appointed by the Probate Court. Following his errors in identifying next-of-kin, Attorney Mary K.C. Soter, the Appellant, was appointed substitutе administrator.
{¶ 5} On October 17, 2005, more than four years after the guardian's final account had been approved by the Probate Court, Soter filed an Objection and Motion to Set Aside the Final Guardianship Account, contending that Beyoglides, as guardian, had failed to comply with R.C.
{¶ 6} Beyoglides filed a memorandum in opposition to the administrator's objection. A magistrate filed a decision finding that the objection was time-barred by R.C.
{¶ 7} On April 21, 2006, Beyoglides filed a Motion For Sanctions, Attorney Fees, and Costs. He argued that because Soter's objection tо his final account was time-barred by R.C.
{¶ 8} The motion was refеrred to a magistrate, who, after a hearing, issued a decision awarding Beyoglides $1,732.50 in attorneys fees and $16.88 in costs he had expended in defending himself agаinst Soter's objection to the guardian's final account. Soter filed Civ. R. 53 objections to the *4 magistrate's decision. On July 5, 2005, the Probate Court overruled the objections and adopted the magistrate's decision. Soter filed a timely notice of appeal.
{¶ 9} Soter presents six assignments of error for reviеw, all relating to the sanctions the Probate Court ordered. We believe the issues they present are resolved by our determination of the third assignment of error, which states:
{¶ 10} "THE COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY OF FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WHEN APPELLANT HAD A GOOD FAITH ARGUMENT FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE LAW."
{¶ 11} The Probate Court imposed sanctions on a finding that the objections to the guardian's final account that Soter filed states a claim that "is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law." R.C.
{¶ 12} R.C.
{¶ 13} "The order of the probate court upon the settlement of a fiduciary's account shall have the effect of a judgment *5 and may be vacated only as follows:
{¶ 14} "(B) The order may be vacated for good cause shown, other than fraud, upon motion of any person affectеd by the order who was not a party to the proceeding in which the order was made and who had no knowledge of the proceeding in time to aрpear in it; provided that, if the account settled by the order is included and specified in the notice to that person of the proceeding in whiсh a subsequent account is settled, the right of that person to vacate the order shall terminate upon the settlement of the subsequent account. A person affected by an order settling an account shall be deemed to have been a party to the proceeding in which the order was made if that person was served with notice of the hearing on the account in accordance with section
{¶ 15} It is undisputed that more than three years had passed since the Probate Court approved the guardian's final account оn September 4, 2001 when Soter filed her objections to the final account on October 17, 2005. However, Beyoglides concedes that Soter had no notice of his final account or the court's approval of it. Therefore, Soter's objection was permitted by R.C.
{¶ 16} Nevertheless, the Probate Court dismissed Soter's objection on a finding that Beyoglides is immune pursuant to the concluding paragraph of R.C.
{¶ 17} On this recоrd, the Probate Court erred when it found that the objection Soter filed was "not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law," R.C.
{¶ 18} As a final matter, we note that any error the Probate Court committed on March 24, 2006, in adopting the magistrate's decision denying the objections to the guardian's final account that Soter filed is not subject to our review. The court's order was final and appealable because it was one which affected a substantial right made in a special proceeding. R.C.
WOLFF, P.J. And FAIN, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
*1Hon Alice O. McCollum