DocketNumber: No. 9771
Citation Numbers: 439 N.E.2d 434, 1 Ohio App. 3d 42
Judges: MAHONEY, J.
Filed Date: 12/31/1980
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
This is an appeal by defendant-appellant, George F. Bratanov, from a judgment of the Probate Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County denying his motion for an order compelling discovery to inspect certain real estate and granting the petition of the surviving spouse (plaintiff-appellee, Anna M. Bratanov) to purchase the "mansion house" at the appraised value. We reverse.
The motion was submitted to a referee who recommended that the motion be granted. Objections were filed to the referee's report and the cause heard by the trial court.
The trial court did not accept the recommendation, denied the motion, and entered final judgment for the widow, holding that R.C.
"2. The trial court erred in ordering the sale without holding the hearing required by R.C.
"3. The trial court erred in ordering the sale without determining whether or not the petitioner was legally or equitably entitled to the benefits of R.C.
"On the hearing of the application or petition, the finding of the court shall be in favor of the surviving spouse, unless it appears that the appraisement was made as a result of collusion or fraud, or that it is so manifestly inadequate that a sale at that price would unconscionably prejudice the rights of the parties in interest or creditors. The action of the court shall not be held to prejudice the rights of lien holders."
R.C.
"When the inventory required by section
It is our duty to interpret these statutes so that they can be read in pari materia, providing the construction is a reasonable one and carries out the legislative intent. Therefore, we hold that R.C.
We further hold that such adversary hearing should permit a defendant the opportunity to have pretrial discovery in the form of an independent appraisal.
We also hold that filing an objection to the inventory and appraisement is not a condition precedent to attacking the appraisement under R.C.
We note that the trial court did not dispose of, or rule on, the defendants' claim that the petitioner (the widow) "was not legally or equitably" entitled to the benefits of R.C.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
BELL, P.J., and VICTOR, J., concur. *Page 44