In re Estate of Maybury , 2022 Ohio 977 ( 2022 )

[Cite as In re Estate of Maybury, 2022-Ohio-977.]
COURT OF APPEALS
KNOX COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE MATTER OF: : JUDGES:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
ESTATE OF TIFFANI MAYBURY : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
DECEASED : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
:
:
: Case No. 22CA000004
:
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Knox County Court
of Common Pleas, Probate Division,
Case No. 20211265
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 25, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant Lori Maybury For Defendant-Appellee James Matheny, II
C. JOSEPH MCCOY ROBERT G. MCCLELLAND
McCoy & McCoy, Attorneys at Law, LLC Graham & Graham Co., L.P.A.
57 East Main Street P.O. Box 340
Newark, Ohio 43055 Zanesville, Ohio 43702-0340
Knox County, Case No. 22CA000004 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Lori Maybury appeals from the December 29, 2021 Journal Entry of the
Probate Court of Knox County denying her Motion to Vacate James M. Matheny II’s
Appointment as Administrator of Estate of Tiffani Maybury.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Appellant Lori Maybury is the mother of Tiffani Maybury. On October 2,
2021, Tiffani, who was unmarried at the time, was killed in an automobile accident. She
is survived by her two minor children, appellant, her step-father and siblings. Tiffani died
without having as last will and testament and, therefore, died intestate.
{¶3} On October 8, 2021, appellee James M. Matheny II, who is Tiffani’s ex-
husband and the father of her children, applied to the Probate Court to be Administrator
of the Estate of Tiffani Maybury for the purpose of pursuing a wrongful death action. He
was granted Letters of Administration on October 13, 2021.
{¶4} Thereafter, on November 15, 2021, appellant filed a Motion to Vacate
James M. Matheny’s II’s Appointment as Administrator as well as an Application for
Authority to Administer the Estate. Appellee filed a memorandum contra both on
November 29, 2021 and appellant filed a reply on December 13, 2021. On December
23, 2021, appellee filed a response to the Motion to Vacate James M. Matheny’s II’s
Appointment as Administrator as well as an Application for Authority to Administer the
Estate.
{¶5} Pursuant to a Journal Entry filed on December 29, 2021, the trial court
denied both appellant’s Motion to Vacate James M. Matheny’s II’s Appointment as
Administrator as well as her Application for Authority to Administer the Estate. The trial
Knox County, Case No. 22CA000004 3
court found that appellant did not have priority to serve as administrator of the Estate of
Tiffani Maybury.
{¶6} Appellant now appeals, raising the following assignment of error on appeal:
{¶7} “I. THE PROBATE COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT LORI
MAYBURY’S MOTION TO VACATE JAMES MATHENY’S APPOINTMENT AS
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF TIFFANI MAYBURY BECAUSE LORI
MAYBURY IS ONE OF HER DECEASED DAUGHTER’S NEXT OF KIN, AND
THEREFORE HAS PRIORITY TO SERVE AS ADMINISTRATOR OF HER
DAUGHTER’S ESTATE.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶8} This case comes to us on the accelerated calendar. App. R. 11. 1, which
governs accelerated calendar cases, provides, in pertinent part:
(E) Determination and judgment on appeal. The appeal will be determined
as provided by App. R. 11.1. It shall be in sufficient compliance with App.
R. 12(A) for the statement of the reason for the court's decision as to each
error to be in brief and conclusionary form. The decision may be by
judgment entry in which case it will not be published in any form.
{¶9} One of the important purposes of the accelerated calendar is to enable an
appellate court to render a brief and conclusory decision more quickly than in a case on
the regular calendar where the briefs, facts and legal issues are more complicated.
Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. 11 Ohio App.3d 158, 463 N.E.2d 655 (1983).
This appeal shall be considered in accordance with the aforementioned rule.
Knox County, Case No. 22CA000004 4
I
{¶10} Appellant, in her sole assignment of error, argues that the trial court erred
in denying her Motion to Vacate the Appointment of James M. Matheny, II as
Administrator of the Estate of Tiffani Matheny.
{¶11} In general, a probate court's decision regarding the granting of letters of
administration in an estate is reviewed for abuse of the court's discretion. In re: Estate of
Henne, 66 Ohio St.2d 232, 421 N.E.2d 506(1981), Estate of Brewer v. Black, 5th Dist.
Stark No. No. 2010–CA–00278, 2011-Ohio-920, ¶ 13. However, courts apply a de novo
standard when reviewing issues of law such as whether, as the trial court found, appellant
did not have priority to serve as administrator of the Estate of Tiffani Maybury. See
Chapman v. Chapman, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2015-L-039, 2015-Ohio-4833.
{¶12} R.C. 2113.06 establishes the priority of persons entitled to administer an
Estate. Such section states, in relevant part, as follows: (A) Administration of the estate
of an intestate shall be granted to persons mentioned in this division, in the following
order:
{¶13} (1) To the surviving spouse of the deceased, if resident of the state;
{¶14} (2) To one of the next of kin of the deceased, resident of the state.
{¶15} (B) If the persons entitled to administer the estate under division (A) of this
section fail to take or renounce administration voluntarily, the matter shall be set for
hearing and notice given to the persons.
{¶16} (C) If there are no persons entitled to administration, if they are for any
reason unsuitable for the discharge of the trust, or if without sufficient cause they neglect
to apply within a reasonable time for the administration of the estate, their right to priority
Knox County, Case No. 22CA000004 5
shall be lost, and the court shall commit the administration to some suitable person who
is a resident of the state, or to the attorney general or the attorney general's designee, if
the department of medicaid is seeking to recover the costs of medicaid services from the
deceased pursuant to section 5162.21 or 5162.211 of the Revised Code. The person
granted administration may be a creditor of the estate. (Emphasis added).
{¶17} Because the decedent in this case had no surviving spouse, her next of kin
was next in line for priority to administer her Estate. ““Next of kin” for purposes of this
statute has been defined to encompass only those persons who are entitled to inherit all
or some portion of the estate of the deceased. In re Estate of Kelly (1956), 102 Ohio App.
518, 144 N.E.2d 130 [3 O.O.2d 56]. ”In re Est. of Robertson, 26 Ohio App. 3d 64, 66, 498
N.E.2d 206, 208 (1985). A person who is entitled to inherit nothing from decedent's estate
has no priority and has no capacity to attack appointment of another. In re Estate of Kelly,
supra.
{¶18} In In re Blevins v. Fueston (June 14, 1976), 1st Dist. No. 102, the court
stated. “ * * * [W]e adopt the rule * * * announced in In re Estate of Kelly, (supra)* * *, that
the term ‘next of kin’ as used in R.C. 2113.06 refers to those persons who are entitled to
inherit all or some portion of the estate of the deceased, and that a person who is entitled
to inherit nothing from the estate has no priority in appointment as administrator of the
estate nor, for that matter, capacity to attack the appointment of another person. * * * The
principle which lies at the foundation of the preferences in the statute is that administration
should be granted to those who eventually will be entitled to the property-those who are
most interested in the estate.” Id. at *1, 144 N.E.2d 130. Thus, the court held that neither
the ex-spouse, who was the mother of the decedent's children, nor the brother of the
Knox County, Case No. 22CA000004 6
decedent was entitled to priority of appointment. Further, the court determined that,
though no one was entitled to priority under the statute, the appointment of the ex-spouse
as a ‘suitable person’ was not contrary to R.C. 2113.06.
{¶19} In the case sub judice, Tiffani Maybury died intestate. Under R.C. 2105.05,
the statute of descent and distribution, because she had no surviving spouse, her two
minor children were entitled to inherit from her. Due to their minority, they were unsuitable
to administer the decedent’s estate and a suitable person would need to be appointed
pursuant to R.C. 2113.06(C).
{¶20} Under Kelly, because appellant has no personal interest in the decedent's
estate, she consequently has no capacity to attack appellee's appointment as
administrator. Because she inherits nothing from the estate, appellant cannot
demonstrate a present interest in the subject matter of the appeal and cannot show that
she was prejudiced by the decision of the trial court. See, In re Estate of Jones, 4th Dist.
Adams No. 09CA879, 2009-Ohio-4457, at ¶ 23 in which the court, in dismissing the
appeal of an ex-wife from the appointment and failure to remove the decedent's sister
as administrator, held that the minor children were “the only parties entitled to inherit the
decedent's estate and, as such are the only next of kin for purposes of R.C. 2113.06.
Because neither [the ex-wife nor the sister is] entitled to inher[it] anything under the
estate, neither [is] entitled to priority of appointment.” Id. at ¶ 21.
Knox County, Case No. 22CA000004 7
{¶21} Appellant, therefore, lacks standing to challenge the trial court’s decision
appointing appellee as the Administrator of the Estate of Tiffani Maybury and we discuss
the current appeal for lack of standing.1
By: Baldwin, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Wise, John, J. concur.
1 In an appellate context, “[t]he doctrine of standing holds that only those parties who can
demonstrate a present interest in the subject matter of the litigation and who have been
prejudiced by the decision of the lower court possess the right to appeal.” In re Estate of Jones,
4th Dist. No. 09CA879, 2009–Ohio–4457, ¶ 22, citing Willoughby Hills v. C.C. Bar's Sahara, 64
Ohio St.3d 24, 26, 1992-Ohio-111, 591 N.E.2d 1203.