Reid v. Daniel
| Decision Date | 19 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 26494 |
| Citation | 2015 Ohio 2423 |
| Parties | WORRELL A. REID, et al. Plaintiffs-A ppellees v. GAYLE DANIEL, et al. Defendants-Appellants |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
(Appeal from Probate Court)
OPINIONWORRELL A. REID, Atty. Reg. No. 0059620, Administrator, 6718 Loop Road, Suite 2, Dayton, Ohio 45459 Plaintiff-Appellee-Pro Se
JEFFREY D. SLYMAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0010098, 211 Kenbrook Drive, Suite 5, Vandalia, Ohio 45377 Attorney for Defendants-Appellants
{¶ 1} In this case, Defendant-Appellant, Gayle Daniel, appeals from a partial summary judgment granted in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees, Worrell A. Reid, Administrator of the Estate of Qulo Daniel, Misti Scales, and Derrick Daniel, Sr.1 In support of her appeal, Gayle contends that the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment to Appellees because proper service was not achieved, and because Appellees should be estopped from claiming that a prenuptial agreement between Gayle and Qulo is binding on Gayle.
{¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that the certified mail service was proper. In addition, the trial court did not err in refusing to apply equitable estoppel, because the record is devoid of any misrepresentation made by the administrator of the decedent's estate. Finally, Gayle provided evidence only of potential fraud in the inducement of the prenuptial agreement, which does not provide a basis for avoiding the effect of the limitations period contained in R.C. 2106.22. Because Gayle failed to file an action challenging the prenuptial agreement within the time period outlined in R.C. 2106.22, she is bound by the terms of the agreement. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
{¶ 3} Most of the facts set forth below were undisputed. However, if facts were disputed and are relevant, we will so indicate; otherwise, the facts that we will recite werenot disputed in the trial court.
{¶ 4} According to the evidence below, Gayle and Qulo were married on February 9, 2001. At the time, Qulo had two children from a prior marriage. On February 8, 2001, Gayle and Qulo signed a prenuptial agreement in consideration of their contemplated marriage. Among other terms, the agreement contained the following provisions:
Exhibit B attached to Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, p. 5.2
{¶ 5} Qulo died intestate on May 15, 2013. The prenuptial agreement was never revoked before his death by the filing of a written agreement with the recorder of Montgomery County, where the parties lived until Qulo's death. On December 21, 2013, Worrell Reid was appointed administrator of Qulo's estate, and a citation to surviving spouse to exercise elective rights was sent to Gayle by certified mail, at the address where she and Qulo lived, i.e., 2800 Oxford Avenue, Dayton, Ohio. Gayle's adult daughter, LaToya Hindsman, signed for the certified mail, but did not give the mail to Gayle.
{¶ 6} On December 21, 2013, Reid sent an email to an attorney, Paul Courtney, informing him that he had been appointed administrator for Qulo's estate, At the time, it appeared that Courtney and another attorney, Jeff Slyman, would be representing Gayle in connection with the estate. However, by December 31, 2013, Reid had been notified that neither Courtney nor Slyman would be representing Gayle. Gayle subsequently called Reid and indicated that she would be representing herself.
{¶ 7} On or about February 22, 2014, Reid sent a proposed settlement agreement to Gayle, Misti, and Derrick. The agreement indicated that the estate took the positionthat the prenuptial agreement between Gayle and Qulo was valid. Reid also told all parties that they could, and should, consult with their own attorneys. As soon as Gayle discovered that Reid was "going to use the premarital agreement against" her, she retained counsel. Affidavit of Gayle Hindsman Daniel, ¶ 22, attached to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
{¶ 8} On May 21, 2014, Gayle filed a "Notice of Intent to Contest Premarital Agreement" in the probate court action. Subsequently, Appellees filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the probate court against the following individuals or companies: Gayle; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (which had allegedly distributed the proceeds of a life insurance policy to Gayle); Latoya Hindsman (who, along with Gayle, was allegedly living in the premises at 2800 Oxford Avenue); and Gregory Brush, Clerk of Courts (who had allegedly improperly transferred title to a 1998 Dodge Ram pickup truck to Gayle).
{¶ 9} The case was originally removed to federal court by Metropolitan Life, but was then remanded to state court after Metropolitan Life was dismissed from the action. A default judgment was also rendered in the state court proceedings against LaToya. In late August 2014, Appellees filed a motion for partial summary judgment against Gayle, contending that she had failed to timely file an action to contest the validity of the prenuptial agreement, and had not timely filed a motion for an extension of time to do so. On October 28, 2014, the trial court filed a Civ.R. 54(B) judgment, granting Appellees' motion for partial summary judgment, and declaring that the prenuptial agreement was valid. This appeal followed.
{¶ 10} Gayle's sole assignment of error states that:
The Trial Court Erred in Granting Partial Summary Judgment.
{¶ 11} Under this assignment of error, Gayle makes three primary points: (1) she was never properly served with, and never received, the citation to surviving spouse to exercise elective rights; (2) the administrator of the estate should be estopped from challenging the timing of the notice of intent to contest the prenuptial agreement, because the administrator induced Gayle to try and reach a settlement without advising her that her time to contest the prenuptial agreement was expiring; and (3) the prenuptial agreement was invalid because a full disclosure of assets and liabilities was not made. We will address these arguments separately.
{¶ 12} R.C. Chapter 2106 outlines the rights of surviving spouses. In this regard, R.C. 2106.25 states that:
Unless otherwise specified by a provision of the Revised Code or this section, a surviving spouse shall exercise all rights under Chapter 2106. of the Revised Code within five months of the initial appointment of an executor or administrator of the estate. It is conclusively presumed that a surviving spouse has waived any right not exercised within that five-month period or within any longer period of time allowed by the court pursuant to this section. Upon the filing of a motion to extend the time for exercising a right under Chapter 2106. of the Revised Code and for good cause shown,the court may allow further time for exercising the right that is the subject of the motion.
{¶ 13} One of the rights granted to surviving spouses under R.C. Chapter 2106 is the right to challenge the validity of antenuptial or separation agreements. See R.C. 2106.22. However, R.C. 2106.22 provides for a shorter limitations period than R.C. 2106.25. In this regard, R.C. 2106.22 states that:
Any antenuptial or separation agreement to which a decedent was a party is valid unless an action to set it aside is commenced within four months after the appointment of the executor or administrator of the estate of the decedent, or unless, within the four-month period, the validity of the agreement otherwise is attacked.
{¶ 14} Thus, in this case, Gayle would have been required to file an action to set aside the prenuptial agreement within four months after Reid was appointed administrator of the estate, or by April 21, 2014. However, Gayle failed to do so. As was noted, Gayle's excuse is that she was not properly served with notice of her rights under R.C. Chapter 2106.
{¶ 15} With respect to elections by a surviving spouse, R.C. 2106.01 provides, in pertinent part, that:
To continue reading
Request your trial