Alexander v. Compton
| Decision Date | 10 May 1978 |
| Citation | 385 N.E.2d 638,57 Ohio App.2d 89 |
| Parties | , 11 O.O.3d 81 ALEXANDER et al., Appellants, v. COMPTON et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Probate Courts have no jurisdiction over claims for money damages resulting from fraud.
William G. Fowler, for appellants.
Frank B. Jandes, Wilmington, for appellants.
This cause came on to be heard upon the appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, and the original papers and pleadings from the Court of Common Pleas, and the assignment of error. It was submitted without oral argument upon the briefs of counsel.
The plaintiffs-appellants are lawful heirs of Frances Moon, whose estate was administered by defendant-appellee Mildred Compton. Appellants allege in their complaint that they were excluded from participating in the distribution of the only probate asset of the estate, a parcel of real estate appraised at $700.
Appellants further allege that their exclusion was the result of intentional fraud on the part of the administratrix, for which fraud they seek punitive damages. They also seek a judgment against defendant-appellee Cincinnati Insurance Company, claiming that the administratrix violated conditions of a surety bond posted by Cincinnati Insurance.
The third count of appellants' complaint prays for the cancellation of the sale of the real estate to defendant-appellee Herschel Spurlock, claiming that Spurlock was not a bona fide purchaser for value.
On January 14, 1977, appellees filed a motion to dismiss alleging a lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and that the issues are Res judicata. The trial court granted appellees' motion on February 17, 1977, apparently dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Appellants' single assignment of error is that the trial court erred to their prejudice by granting appellees' motion.
The appellants contend that the Court of Common Pleas and the Probate Court have concurrent jurisdiction over an action to vacate the final order of the Probate Court for fraud, and that the Court of Common Pleas has exclusive jurisdiction over such an action where damages are sought in addition to vacation.
While there is authority to both support 1 and contradict 2 appellants' contention that the two divisions of Common Pleas Court share jurisdiction over fraud claims, it is unnecessary for us to decide that issue. We find that the Probate Court does not have jurisdiction over any claim for money damages resulting from fraud.
R.C. 2109.35(A) provides, in part:
Since appellants' action, based upon fraud, seeks not only to vacate the order of the Probate Court, but also seeks money damages, the court is not entirely within the statutory jurisdiction granted to the Probate Court by R.C. 2109.35(A). Neither is it within the enumerated areas of jurisdiction granted the Probate Court in R.C. 2101.24.
Appellees argue that the Probate Court has equity jurisdiction to adjudicate all questions arising in proceedings properly before it. R.C. 2101.33 states:
"The probate court has the same power as the court of common pleas to vacate or modify its orders or judgments."
R.C. 2101.24 provides that:
"The probate court shall have plenary power at law and in equity fully to dispose of any matter properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited by statute."
The equity power granted in these sections has been narrowly interpreted. In construing G.C. Section 10501-17 (R.C. 2101.33), the Ohio Supreme Court stated:
3
The Probate Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County construing R.C. 2101.24 as it relates to a counterclaim for money damages in Probate Court, concluded:
"A matter over which the court has no jurisdiction is manifestly not properly before the court, and consequently the court has no plenary power to dispose of it." 4
The court concluded that an action for money damages is not within the jurisdiction of the Probate Court.
The appellants, then, initiated their action for fraud and damages in the proper court.
" * * * (I)t is recognized in Ohio that in any case where the relief that may be had in the Probate Court is not adequate, the Common Pleas Court has jurisdiction." 5
Correspondingly, the action on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Widok v. Estate of Wolf
...matter of law, a probate court has no jurisdiction over a claim for money damages resulting from fraud."), citing Alexander v. Compton, 57 Ohio App.2d 89, 385 N.E.2d 638 (1978); DiPaolo v. DeVictor, 51 Ohio App.3d 166, 555 N.E.2d 969 (10th Dist.1988). Because Widok's intentional interferenc......
-
Barone v. Barone, 15302
...89 N.M. 594, 555 P.2d 715 (1976), reh. den., cert. den.; Latham v. Father Divine, supra, 85 N.E.2d at 171; Alexander v. Compton, 57 Ohio App.2d 89, 385 N.E.2d 638 (1978); Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, supra; Seeds v. Seeds, The timeliness of Ms. Ellis' equitable claim for a constructive trust is, t......
-
Burns v. Daily
...general division of the court of common pleas, for the probate court has no jurisdiction over them. See Alexander v. Compton (1978), 57 Ohio App.2d 89, 11 O.O.3d 81, 385 N.E.2d 638 (probate court has no jurisdiction over any claim for money damages resulting from fraud); In re Estate of Stu......
-
Bedo v. McGuire
...Morton v. Petitt, 124 Ohio St. 241, 177 N.E. 591 (1931); Seeds v. Seeds, 116 Ohio St. 144, 156 N.E. 193 (1927); Alexander v. Compton, 57 Ohio App.2d 89, 385 N.E.2d 638 (1978). Because each of these cases involved express allegations of fraud, I am uncertain whether Ohio courts would apply t......