Randle v. RandleRandle v. Randle
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Calabrese, Ann Dyke, Christine T. McMonagle
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Valentina Randle (appellant) appeals the probate court‘s judgment against her for concealment and embezzlement of assets belonging to her deceased father Lieutenant Randle‘s (Randle) estate. After reviewing the facts of the case and pertinent law, we affirm.
I
{¶ 2} On February 5, 2004, Randle died leaving a will stating that his assets were to be divided equally between appellant and her brother Lieutenant Randle II (Randle II). On March 15, 2004, appellant was appointed executrix of Randle‘s estate, per the terms of the will. On March 17, 2004, appellant closed various bank accounts that were in Randle‘s name, and on March 18, 2004, she deposited $116,752.93 into a savings account in her name. On May 27, 2004, appellant filed an inventory of Randle‘s estate assets, which included $5,700 of personal property and $60,800 of real property — the $116,752.93 was not listed on the inventory.
{¶ 3} On November 12, 2004, Randle II filed a complaint against appellant alleging concealment and embezzlement of estate assets, stating that appellant failed and refused to place the $116,752.93 in question on the estate inventory. On July 28, 2005, a magistrate presided over a hearing regarding the merits of the complaint. On the same day, appellant filed a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against two people who were defendants in a separate declaratory judgment case that appellant initiated in the court of common pleas. See Valentina Randle, et al. v. Willie Glenn, et al., (Dec. 28, 2006), Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas No. CV-04-546302. Case No. 546302 involves a monetary dispute between appellant and members of the Star of Bethel Baptist Church, where Randle had been the senior pastor. Appellant requested that the defendants in Case No. 546302 also be named defendants in the instant case in order to have a proper and full accounting of Randle‘s estate assets.
{¶ 4} On October 27, 2005, appellant opened an account in the name of Randle‘s estate and deposited $53,854.41. On November 14, 2005, the court completed the merit hearing regarding the complaint against appellant.
{¶ 5} On November 29, 2005, the magistrate issued a report which denied appellant‘s third-party complaint, finding that Case No. 546302 involved funds that were technically not part of Randle‘s estate because appellant failed to list them on the inventory. Additionally, the event that triggered Case No. 546302 occurred before appellant opened the estate bank account and, thus, had nothing to do with the estate. The magistrate also found that judgment in the instant case should be entered against appellant for “being in possession of an asset belonging to the decedent valued at $62,898.52,” which is the difference between the $116,752.93 appellant withdrew from Randle‘s personal accounts and the $53,854.41 that she deposited into Randle‘s estate account.
{¶ 6} On April 3, 2006, the court adopted the magistrate‘s decision and this appeal ensued.
II
{¶ 7} In her first assignment of error, appellant argues that “the probate court denied appellant due process, and committed reversible error, when it denied appellants’ [sic] motion requesting leave to join a third party defendant, whom appellant identified as being in possession of estate assets, and then, without further inquiry, found appellant guilty of concealment of estate assets.” Specifically, appellant argues that the court should have conducted a hearing regarding her motion to file a third-party complaint, and the failure to do so violated her due process rights.
{¶ 8} We first note that Randle II initiated this action pursuant to
{¶ 9} Third-party complaints are governed by
{¶ 10} In the instant case, appellant argues that she was entitled to a hearing because the proceedings against her were quasi-criminal in nature. Appellant is correct; however, she was afforded hearings on July 28, 2005 and November 14, 2005. Appellant was not entitled to an additional hearing regarding her
III
{¶ 11} In her second and final assignment of error, appellant argues that “the probate court committed reversible error, when, in its judgment entry, it overruled defendant-appellant‘s objections and adopted the magistrate‘s decision, which clearly stated that plaintiff-appellee was unable to provide the court with clear and convincing evidence that defendant was in possession of assets belonging to the decedent, and then inconsistently finding the appellant guilty of concealment and embezzlement.” Specifically, appellant argues that because she acted at all times in good faith, rather than fraudulently, the court erred in rendering judgment against her for being in possession of an asset belonging to Randle‘s estate, in contravention to
{¶ 12} As stated earlier,
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
ANN DYKE, J., CONCURS; CHRISTINE T. McMONAGLE, J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY