In re Estate of Black

37 Citing cases

  1. Fecteau v. Trust Co.

    171 Ohio St. 121 (Ohio 1960)   Cited 52 times
    In Fecteau v. Cleveland Trust Co. (1960), 171 Ohio St. 121, 12 O.O.2d 139, 167 N.E.2d 890, at paragraph three of the syllabus, we held that the opening of a joint and survivorship account "is not always conclusive as to the ownership of the account, and, where a controversy arises as to the ownership of such account, evidence is admissible in a proper case to show the true situation."

    And here the money was withdrawn from the bank accounts prior to the death of Peter E. Fecteau. It is suggested that the cases of Goodrich, Admr., v. Anderson, 136 Ohio St. 509, 26 N.E.2d 1016, In re Estate of Black, 145 Ohio St. 405, 62 N.E.2d 90, and In re Estate of Leiby, 157 Ohio St. 374, 105 N.E.2d 583, have relevancy to the instant case. But, with perhaps the exception of the Goodrich case, none of those cases, as does the instant one, involves an effort to recover any existing specific "moneys, chattels or choses in action of the trust estate," within the meaning of those words as used in Sections 2109.50 and 2109.52, Revised Code. Here it is alleged that defendant Larkin took the decedent's money and placed it in an account in her name, where it still is. Thus in effect it is stated that the chose in action represented by that account is a chose in action of the trust estate within the meaning of the statutes involved.

  2. In re Leiby

    157 Ohio St. 374 (Ohio 1952)   Cited 21 times
    Finding respondent bore a trust relationship to her employer while handling monies under instructions to disburse pursuant to her employer's direction

    Resort may not be had to these sections to collect a debt due a decedent, to obtain an accounting and judgment for any balance found due, or to adjudicate rights under a contract. ( Goodrich, Admr., v. Anderson, 136 Ohio St. 509, and In re Estate of Black, 145 Ohio St. 405, approved and followed.) 2.

  3. Murray v. Carano

    2017 Ohio 8235 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)

    {ΒΆ37} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that an action under the statute necessarily involves a charge of wrongful or criminal conduct on the part of the person accused. In re Black's Estate, 145 Ohio St. 405, 62 N.E.2d 90 (1945), paragraph two of the syllabus. "The word 'guilty' * * * implies wrongful possession.

  4. State v. Harmon

    2017 Ohio 320 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 9 times
    In Harmon, a probate court found the defendant guilty of embezzling estate assets and levied the statutory ten percent fine.

    {ΒΆ 16} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that an action under the statute necessarily involves a charge of wrongful or criminal conduct on the part of the person accused. In re Black's Estate, 145 Ohio St. 405, 62 N.E.2d 90 (1945), paragraph two of the syllabus. However, even though the proceeding under R.C. 2109.50 is quasi-criminal in nature, it does not involve the litigation of a criminal act.

  5. Longworth v. Childers

    2008 Ohio 4927 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 13 times

    {ΒΆ 20} "To the contrary, a violation of R.C. 2109.50 involves wrongful or culpable conduct on the part of the person accused. In re Estate of Black [(1945), 145 Ohio St. 405, 31 O.O. 31, 62 N.E.2d 90] paragraph three of the syllabus; In re Estate of Johnson (1943), 38 Ohio Law Abs. 372, 50 N.E.2d 273; Gregg v. Kent (1938), 27 Ohio Law Abs. 628."

  6. In re Estate of Woods

    110 Ohio App. 277 (Ohio Ct. App. 1959)   Cited 12 times

    In Ohio, the statute (Section 2109.50 et seq., Revised Code) provides a summary means, inquisitorial in nature, (1) to recover specific property, or the proceeds or value thereof, belonging to a trust estate, title to which was in a decedent at his death, or (2) to recover property belonging to a trust estate, concealed or disposed of after the appointment of a fiduciary. In re Estate of Black, 145 Ohio St. 405, 62 N.E.2d 90; In re Estate of Leiby, supra ( 157 Ohio St. 374), at page 381; In re Estate of Gottwald, 164 Ohio St. 405, 411, 131 N.E.2d 586; In re Estate of Fife, supra ( 164 Ohio St. 449) at page 453. The purpose of the section is not to furnish a substitute for a civil action to recover judgment for money owing to an administrator, but rather to provide a speedy and effective method for discovering assets belonging to the estate and to secure possession of them for the purpose of administration.

  7. Goldberg v. Maloney

    2006 Ohio 5485 (Ohio 2006)   Cited 28 times

    {ΒΆ 38} Nor do the cases cited by the court of appeals warrant a different result. The court of appeals cited In re Estate of Black (1945), 145 Ohio St. 405, 31 O.O. 31, 62 N.E.2d 90, In re Estate of Leiby (1952), 157 Ohio St. 374, 47 O.O. 265, 105 N.E.2d 583, and Harrison, 159 Ohio App.3d 325, 2004-Ohio-6808, 823 N.E.2d 925, in support of its holding that Judge Maloney patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction over the Kish concealment action because it involved preguardianship transactions. In Black, at paragraph four of the syllabus, we emphasized that a concealment action "may not be successfully pursued where it appears from the evidence that title to such property had been transferred by the ward, pursuant to a valid agreement, prior to the guardianship."

  8. Fife v. Beck

    164 Ohio St. 449 (Ohio 1956)   Cited 87 times

    A proceeding for the discovery of concealed or embezzled assets of an estate is a special statutory proceeding of a summary and inquisitorial character, and, since, under Section 2109.52, Revised Code, a finding of "guilty" or "not guilty" is required, with the imposition of a penalty upon a finding of guilty, the proceeding is quasi criminal in nature. Its purpose is to facilitate the administration of estates by expeditiously bringing into such estates those assets which rightfully belong there. Goodrich, Admr., v. Anderson, 136 Ohio St. 509, 26 N.E.2d 1016; In re Estate of Black, 145 Ohio St. 405, 62 N.E.2d 90; In re Estate of Leiby, 157 Ohio St. 374, 105 N.E.2d 583. In the opinion in the case of Davis, Admr., v. Johnson, 332 Mo., 417, 421, 58 S.W.2d 746, 748, it is remarked:

  9. In re Estate of Gottwald

    164 Ohio St. 405 (Ohio 1956)   Cited 24 times

    In Goodrich, Admr., v. Anderson, 136 Ohio St. 509, 26 N.E.2d 1016, this court held that the summary proceeding to discover concealed assets is special and designed to facilitate the administration of estates, but that it can not be used primarily as a substitute for a civil action for a money judgment, wherein pleadings are required to properly define the issues. In the case of In re Estate of Black, 145 Ohio St. 405, 62 N.E.2d 90, the court held that the summary proceeding to discover concealed assets may not be used to collect a debt, obtain an accounting or adjudicate rights under a contract. See, also, In re Estate of Butler, 137 Ohio St. 115, 28 N.E.2d 196; In re Estate of Leiby, 157 Ohio St. 374, 105 N.E.2d 583.

  10. Minshall v. Ahner

    2024 Ohio 3428 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)

    Put simply, a concealment action is "a summary means, inquisitorial in nature, to recover specific property or proceeds or value thereof belonging to [an estate], title to which was in a decedent at [their] death or in a ward when his guardian was appointed; or to recover property belonging to [an estate], concealed, taken or disposed of after the appointment of the fiduciary." Art at ΒΆ 33, citing In re. Estate of Black, 145 Ohio St. 405 (1945). It is not a proceeding to be used by individuals "to collect a debt, obtain an accounting or adjudicate rights under a contract" and "bears little resemblance to a civil action, either in purpose or execution.