Summary
In State ex rel. Matasy v. Morley, 25 Ohio St.3d 22, 23, 494 N.E.2d 1146 (1986), the Ohio Supreme Court explained the criteria for standing: "* * * [A] prohibition action may only be commenced by a person who is either a party to the proceeding sought to be prohibited * * * or demonstrates an injury in fact to a legally protected interest."
Summary of this case from State ex rel. The City of Massillon v. ElumOpinion
No. 86-312
Decided July 9, 1986.
Probate — Appointment of appraisers — R.C. 2115.06 and Standard Probate Form 3.0 — No legal interest of person selected as appraiser by fiduciary, but not approved by court, to challenge court's appointment.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County.
Effective August 1, 1985, appellee, Mahoning County Probate Judge Leo P. Morley, promulgated the following amendment to Loc. R. 28.1:
"Appraisers appointed by fiduciaries under Ohio Revised Code, Section 2115.06 shall be suitable disinterested persons approved by the Court. Fiduciaries may request this Court to appoint appraisers."
The court also instituted revised probate form 3.0 to provide for implementation of Loc. R. 28.1.
Appellant, John W. Matasy, has over the past twenty years developed a substantial business by performing real estate appraisals, including appraisals for fiduciaries in probate matters. Subsequent to August 1985, appellant was appointed by the fiduciaries of four separate estates to serve as the appraiser therein, subject to the approval of the court. A hearing was held in each of these cases. Appellant submits that no one voiced an objection to his appointment or to his qualifications to serve as an appraiser. However, in each case, appellee chose not to approve the appointments and appointed someone other than appellant.
On October 7, 1985, appellant filed an original action in mandamus and/or prohibition in the court of appeals seeking an order compelling appellee to approve the appointment of appraisers in accordance with R.C. 2115.06 and to use Standard Probate Form 3.0, and further to prohibit appellee from appointing appraisers other than appellant and implementing revised probate form 3.0. Appellee answered and filed a motion to dismiss. Appellant thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment.
On December 3, 1985, the appellate court held a hearing on this matter. On December 26, 1985, the court granted appellee's motion to dismiss and overruled appellant's motion for summary judgment.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Louis E. Katz, for appellant.
William M. Marshall, Jr., and John B. Juhasz, for appellee.
Appellant challenges the authority of a probate judge to appoint someone other than one selected by the executor or administrator of an estate to act as the appraiser of that estate. In addition, appellant objects to the court's revision of Standard Probate Form 3.0.
Pursuant to this court's holding in State, ex rel. Skilton, v. Miller (1955), 164 Ohio St. 163 [57 O.O. 145], paragraph two of the syllabus, where "no legal right of a person can be affected by the failure of a public official to act in any given manner, such person does not have a beneficial interest such as will permit him to maintain an action in mandamus to require such official to so act." Similarly, a prohibition action may only be commenced by a person who is either a party to the proceeding sought to be prohibited, State, ex rel. Pratt, v. Earhart (1956), 164 Ohio St. 480 [58 O.O. 324], or demonstrates an injury in fact to a legally protected interest. State, ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, v. Phillips (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 457 [75 O.O.2d 511].
In the case at bar, we fail to see how any beneficial interest of appellant may be said to be adversely affected by the actions at issue. R.C. 2115.06 requires that estates "be appraised by one suitable disinterested person appointed by the executor or administrator, subject to the approval of the court * * *." Clearly, this language subjects appellant's right to serve as the appraiser of any estate upon the approval of the court. In the absence of such approval, appellant has no legal interest which may be affected by the court's selection of another appraiser.
Likewise, appellant has failed to establish any legal interest affected by the court's revision of Standard Probate Form 3.0.
For the reasons set forth herein, we hereby affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, C. BROWN and DOUGLAS, JJ., concur.
WRIGHT, J., concurs in judgment only.
HOLMES, J., not participating.