Powell v. Williams
| Decision Date | 24 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 110536 |
| Citation | 185 N.E.3d 595 |
| Parties | Sophia POWELL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Eric Brandon WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Joseph Lewandowski, for appellants.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
{¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Sophia Powell and Tiffany Powell ("appellants"), appeal the probate court's denial of their motion for genetic testing and dismissal of their will-contest complaint. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Larry Williams ("decedent") died, testate, on August 14, 2019. The decedent's Last Will and Testament, dated May 29, 2018 (hereinafter "will"), specified that he had four children — defendant-appellee, Eric Brandon Williams ("Williams"), who is an adult, and three minor-aged children. The will appointed Williams to serve as executor and identified him as the sole primary beneficiary of the decedent's estate. The will further designated the decedent's minor children and Williams's children, if any, as contingent beneficiaries.
{¶ 3} On September 26, 2019, Williams applied to the probate court to probate the decedent's will and to administer his estate. As part of that application, Williams identified appellants as the decedent's "alleged daughters." The probate court subsequently appointed Williams as executor and issued him letters of authority to administer the estate.
{¶ 4} On May 21, 2020, appellants filed an action contesting the decedent's will, contending that they were the decedent's daughters and alleging that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity to execute the will or was under undue influence and duress by Williams in executing the will. As such, appellants requested that the probate court set aside the will, declare that the decedent died intestate, and award them a share of the decedent's estate. Appellants further requested that if Williams contested that appellants were, in fact, the decedent's natural-born children, that the court order genetic testing of Williams or that the decedent's remains be exhumed for genetic testing. Williams filed an answer, denying the allegations, including that appellants are the decedent's daughters.
{¶ 5} After several pretrials and discovery, appellants filed a motion for genetic testing to determine whether they are, in fact, the decedent's natural-born children. The motion requested that the court order DNA genetic testing on Williams and sought permission to request the voluntary consent of their mother and the decedent's brother to submit to DNA genetic testing. Appellants asserted that as their "first step" in contesting the decedent's will, they must establish that they are the biological children of the decedent. They claimed that in addition to an affidavit from their mother, birthday cards from the decedent, "beneficiary designations," and their inclusion in the decedent's obituary, the genetic testing would conclusively prove that they are the decedent's children. Appellants generally asserted that "illegitimate children" are entitled to inherit under the laws of intestate succession and any deprivation of that right violates the Equal Protection Clause. Appellants appeared to argue that the trial court's failure to order genetic testing would violate their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
{¶ 6} Williams did not file any opposition to appellants’ motion, and the probate court did not conduct a hearing.
{¶ 7} On April 29, 2021, the probate court denied appellants’ motion for genetic testing, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over any parentage action pursuant to R.C. 3111.381 because the statute of limitations in determining the existence or nonexistence of a parent-child relationship had expired. Consequently, the court determined that because the appellants are not "interested persons" as required under R.C. 2107.71(A), they lacked standing to contest the decedent's will. Accordingly, the court dismissed appellants’ complaint.
{¶ 8} Appellants now appeal, raising the following sole assignment of error:
Ohio's statutory scheme denying an illegitimate child who is now an adult, (over 23), the right to inherit by intestate succession from the child's natural father unless the natural father has married the mother, the illegitimate child has been acknowledged in a court proceeding by the natural father[,] or the illegitimate child has been adopted by the natural father constitutes a violation of the [Fourteenth] Amendment's guarantee to the "Equal Protection of the Laws."
{¶ 9} Appellants raise a constitutional argument challenging Ohio's statutory scheme regarding adult illegitimate children (i.e., natural-born children), and their ability to initiate proceedings to recognize a parent-child relationship after the alleged father's death for the purpose of inheriting under the laws of intestate succession.
{¶ 10} It is well established that a party cannot raise a constitutional issue for the first time on appeal. See State v. Awan , 22 Ohio St.3d 120, 489 N.E.2d 277 (1986), syllabus ("Failure to raise at the trial court level the issue of the constitutionality of a statute or its application, which issue is apparent at the time of trial, constitutes a waiver and therefore need not be heard for the first time on appeal.") Moreover, even if appellants had properly raised and argued the constitutional issue with the probate court, this case can be decided without reaching the constitutional issue. Reviewing courts should avoid reaching constitutional issues "when ‘other issues are apparent in the record which will dispose of the case on its merits.’ " In re D.S. , 152 Ohio St.3d 109, 2017-Ohio-8289, 93 N.E.3d 937, ¶ 7, quoting Greenhills Home Owners Corp. v. Greenhills , 5 Ohio St.2d 207, 212, 215 N.E.2d 403 (1966) ; State v. Talty , 103 Ohio St.3d 177, 2004-Ohio-4888, 814 N.E.2d 1201, ¶ 9.
{¶ 11} Although appellants generally argued in the probate court that denying a natural-born child her right to inherit under intestate succession violates the constitutional right of equal protection under the law, they failed to set forth specific challenges to Ohio's Parentage scheme, including its statute of limitations to bring such an action, and how Ohio's statutory scheme deprives appellants equal protection under the law. Accordingly, because appellants did not raise the equal protection issues in the probate court that they now raise on appeal, those arguments are waived for purposes of appeal.
{¶ 12} Nevertheless, the Ohio Supreme Court has previously determined that Ohio's statutory scheme, which only allows natural-born children to inherit from their natural fathers under certain circumstances, is constitutional and does not violate natural born children's rights to equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment or Article I, Section 2, of the Ohio Constitution. White v. Randolph , 59 Ohio St.2d 6, 11, 391 N.E.2d 333 (1979) ; Brookbank v. Gray , 74 Ohio St.3d 279, 287, 658 N.E.2d 724 (1996) (); Rushford v. Caines , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 00AP-1072, 2001 WL 310006, 3 (Mar. 30, 2001).
{¶ 13} Appellants focus their appeal on the constitutional challenges to Ohio's statutory scheme regarding illegitimate children, but do not make any specific argument challenging the probate court's denial of their motion for genetic testing or dismissal of their will contest complaint. Nevertheless, we find no error.
{¶ 14} Although appellants brought this matter as a will-contest action, it morphed into a parentage action when appellants requested that the probate court order Williams and other nonparty individuals to submit to genetic testing. The probate court, in its well-written opinion, properly dismissed the complaint, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to proceed.
{¶ 15} It is well-settled that proceedings in probate court are restricted to those actions permitted by statute and by the Constitution because the probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Corron v. Corron , 40 Ohio St.3d 75, 531 N.E.2d 708 (1988), paragraph one of the syllabus, citing Schucker v. Metcalf , 22 Ohio St.3d 33, 488 N.E.2d 210 (1986). Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(p), the probate court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction involving will-contest actions.
{¶ 17} In this case, the alleged father has a pending estate action subject to the jurisdiction of the probate court. Accordingly, under R.C. Chapter 3111, the probate court could also retain jurisdiction to determine the existence or nonexistence of a parent and child relationship between the decedent and appellants, if properly commenced.
{¶ 18} Only a person with standing can bring an action or continue to prosecute an action. State ex rel. Dallman v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 35 Ohio St.2d 176, 178, 298 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial