DocketNumber: Nos. CA2007-05-131, CA2007-05-132.
Citation Numbers: 2009 Ohio 560
Judges: WALSH, P.J.
Filed Date: 2/9/2009
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
{¶ 2} The Ezra Westcott Washington Trust ("Trust") has endured a rather tumultuous past, and therefore, a brief history of the Trust is helpful to gain a better understanding of the *Page 2 issues presented on appeal.
{¶ 3} Appellant's uncle, Ezra Westcott Washington, died on May 7, 1970, and his will, which created the Trust, was admitted to probate on May 18, 1970. On October 31, 1973, the probate court, pursuant to "Item Twelve" of her deceased uncle's will, appointed appellant as trustee after C.A. Washington, Jr., the original trustee, was removed.1 On September 10, 1976, a report was filed with the probate court describing appellant's performance as trustee which raised substantial questions regarding her fitness to remain in that position. On June 5, 1986, the probate court, after much litigation, removed appellant as trustee and appointed James Washington ("James"), her brother, as her successor. On June 9, 1992, the probate court denied appellant's motion requesting reinstatement as trustee.
{¶ 4} On October 3, 1997, James was removed from the trustee position because he "failed to file the fiduciary accounts required by law and otherwise failed to abide by the orders of [the court]." On that same date, the probate court re-appointed appellant as trustee.
{¶ 5} On November 12, 2004, appellant filed a complaint against James, her brother. In response, James filed a motion to remove appellant, his sister, as trustee. After conducting a hearing on January 16, 2007, the probate court dismissed appellant's complaint against her brother and granted James' motion to remove his sister as trustee. Appellant now appeals the probate court's decision, raising two assignments of error.
{¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 7} "THE PROBATE COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT ET AL, ALLOWING ABUSE OF PROCEDURE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS, *Page 3 FAILING TO PROBATE EZRA W. WASHINGTON ESTATE; AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BY IGNORING FILINGS SEEKING TO INDITE [sic]. CONSPIRATORS FOR ILLEGAL CONSENT TO WAIVER CONTENTS OF ESTATE DOCUMENT PRESENTED, DISABLING HEIRS TO RECOVER INHERITANCE FROM THE ESTATE OF (SURGEON, DR. EZRA W. WASHINGTON)."
{¶ 8} Appellant asserts that the probate court's decision to dismiss her complaint and remove her as trustee is error. Appellant lists a number of bases to support her assignment of error, all of which we have considered. Appellant also requests this court to provide her with monetary relief in the amount of $2,500,000 and to implement criminal "charges against the defendants."
{¶ 9} Appellant's first assignment of error apparently stems from her misconception of the role of the appellate court. An appellate court, in this matter, has limited jurisdiction to review and affirm, modify, or reverse the judgment or final order of a trial court. App. R. 12(A)(1)(a). Therefore, appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 10} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 11} "THE PROBATE COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT IN OVERRULING MOTION OF PLAINTIFF, TRANFERRING TRUSTEESHIP TO DEFENDANT WITHOUT CAUSE."
{¶ 12} Appellant, in her second assignment of error, argues that the probate court erred in appointing her brother as trustee. However, contrary to appellant's belief, the probate court merely removed appellant from her role as trustee and did not appoint her brother as her successor.2 However, despite appellant's mistake, and in the interest of *Page 4 justice, we will address her intended argument as to whether the probate court erred in removing her as trustee.
{¶ 13} Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 14} After conducting a hearing on the motion, the probate court found that appellant had been "steadfast" in her refusal to sell, or cooperate in attempts to sell, trust property encumbered with tax liens later lost to foreclosure or any other trust property currently being operated at a loss. The probate court also found that "[m]any of [appellant's] recent filings have been vexatious and difficult to comprehend." The probate court, in removing appellant as trustee pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 15} Judgment affirmed.
BRESSLER and YOUNG, JJ., concur.