See id. Defendants nevertheless insist that I lack subject-matter jurisdiction because the order appointing Richard to administer Scott's is allegedly void. According to the defense, Scott's estate "was not created in compliance with Ohio law, and. As just discussed, however, I do have subject-matter jurisdiction "over the pending claims," which fall within my federal-question jurisdiction. Framed that way, defendants' challenge arguably raises a question of standing, and "[w]hether a party has standing is an issue of the court's subject-matter jurisdiction[.
The doctrine "seeks to ensure the plaintiff has a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. Wayne Cnty. The "irreducible constitutional minimum of standing consists of three elements. The plaintiff must have 1 suffered an injury in fact, 2 that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and 3 that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.
To the extent that defendants' motion raises an argument that either Richard or Scott's estate lacks standing, that argument would lack merit. Richard brought this action in his representative capacity, as the administrator of his son's estate. Ohio Oliver, J. Therefore, my jurisdiction does not turn on whether Richard personally suffered an injury in fact.
A decedent's estate is "an aggregate comprising the assets and liabilities of the decedent. Liposchak v. Peters v. Columbus Steel Castings Co. See generally Jaco v.
In this case, Scott's estate suffered injuries in fact — Scott's death as well as the injuries Scott suffered before he died — and it seeks, through its administrator, to recover the damages arising from those injuries that are traceable to defendants' conduct. Accordingly, the estate has Article III standing. Fletcher stemmed from the death of a man named Gilbert while in police custody.
The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, contending that the estate lacked standing to sue. The district court rejected the argument. After explaining that the defendants' argument conflated the concept of the estate's standing with its capacity to sue, id. Other courts have likewise held that an estate had Article III standing to pursue claims for violations of federal law.
For example, in Estate of Ponder, supra, WL , the decedent's estate filed a complaint alleging that a former employer violated the decedent's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and that the violation contributed to the decedent's death. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that estate "has no standing to bring this action because, under Alabama law, the personal claims of a decedent which existed prior to. The district court disagreed.
Because "the Estate itself could trace a direct injury" — the decedent's death — "to the alleged acts of the defendants," the court held that "the Estate has standing. Koho v. Forest Labs, Inc. Defendants are likely to respond that Scott's estate could not suffer an injury in fact because the estate never existed.
According to the defendants, "[t]he single most fundamental aspect of every action brought by the estate of a deceased individual lies in the creation of the estate itself. Because Richard purported to open the estate in Sandusky County, where Scott allegedly did not reside, defendants contend that Richard did not "properly create an estate[.
Lucas County, OH Public Records
As noted above, an estate is simply the name the law gives to a decedent's collection of assets and liabilities. State ex rel. Liposchak, supra, 90 Ohio St. Among the assets that a decedent's estate possesses, moreover, is a survivor claim for injuries that the decedent incurred before the decedent's death.
Peters, supra, Ohio St. Furthermore, it cannot "sue or be sued; any action for or against it must be brought by or against the executor[. All of these rules seem to presuppose the existence, upon the death of the decedent, of an estate, without regard to whether someone has purported to "open" the estate in probate court.
Furthermore, none of the cases the defendants cite actually held that opening an estate in probate court is a prerequisite to the creation or existence of a so-called "lawful estate. The district court in Koho, supra, WL , concluded in a similar case though applying Washington law that probate proceedings were not a prerequisite to the existence of a "lawful estate.
In Koho, the plaintiff filed a survivor claim on behalf of her decedent before a Washington probate court appointed her the estate administrator. According to the defendants, the decedent's "estate did not even exist" before the plaintiff opened the estate in probate court and received her appointment as estate administrator. Just like the defendants' argument here with respect to Ohio law, the defendants in Koho "cite[d] no case for the proposition that an estate does not exist — and is not injured — for purposes of Washington's survivorship statute until steps are taken to open the probate estate.
The necessary implication, the district court found, was that an estate must exist before the opening of a probate action; otherwise, an estate could never bring a survivor claim:. Rejecting that illogical outcome, the court held that the decedent's estate "suffered injury in fact and existed for purposes of Washington law at the time that [he] died. So too here: Scott's estate existed at the time of death, and it suffered an injury in the form of, at the very least, the injuries before his death, cf.
Peters, Ohio St. Jaco, supra, F. Because Scott's estate suffered an injury in fact, defendants' standing arguments, such as they are, do not undermine my subjectmatter jurisdiction.
Defendants' challenge to Richard's power to bring this suit on the estate's behalf implicates his capacity to sue. Under Rule 17 b 3 , "the law of the state in which the district court sits governs a party's capacity. Accordingly, Ohio law determines whether Richard can sue on behalf of Scott's estate. Because an estate lacks capacity to sue, it must act through an administrator or personal representative. The administrator of an intestate decedent's estate must, in turn, receive his appointment from "the probate court of the county in which the decedent was a resident at the time of his death.
The probate court's power to administer an intestate decedent's estate is a question of the court's subject-matter jurisdiction. If the decedent was not a resident of the county in which the probate court sits, then that court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the estate.
Lucas County court gets $35, tech grant | Toledo Blade
Any order issued by a probate court without subject-matter jurisdiction is a nullity, and any party affected by such an order — including an order appointing an administrator — may collaterally attack it. See Ohio Pyro, Inc. We seek to do this with integrity and being faithful to the laws of the State of Ohio. As you prepare for your wedding, one of your stops is to visit Probate Court to get your marriage license.
Every child deserves to grow up in a loving family, and adoption is one way in which a person can provide a loving home for a child. Probate documents replaced free of charge for victims of area floods Judge Elinore Marsh Stormer is offering free replacement of legal documents that may have been lost during flooding in Summit County. This includes areas in Barberton, Clinton and others that were particularly hard hit and may have had their basements or storage flooded. If you have any questions, please call the Probate Court at Court hours are Monday through Friday 8 a.
Proof of residency Judge Stormer, our Magistrates and staff spend many hours volunteering in our communities to educate the residence of Summit County about how Probate Court can help you with your needs. This court is a national model for mental illness courts across the nation.
The foregoing analysis of the evidence and the law applicable to the statute as it is now amended is supported by the following cases, recognizing, of course, variation in fact which would dictate different results:. Rosinski, 60 Ohio Law Abs. We see nothing in that case contrary to our conclusion in the instant case.
The evidence in the Biddle case is of a different character and effect. In the case of In re Adoption of Wedl, supra, Probate Court Judge Ziegel made an exhaustive review of the adoption statutes of Ohio, tracing the history of this legislation down to the present time. He stated:. While the language of the present act permits more latitude in determining when the rights of parents to their child have been lost so that their positive consent to an adoption of that child by another is not required, it does not open the door completely.
The facts and circumstances of the case before this court do not place the mother under the definition as stated in the Biddle case, supra, where on page it is said:. In the case of In re Adoption of DeVore, supra, two members of this court participating, it is stated:. Thus, the rule of strict construction of the statute is salutary and benevolent. There being no substantial evidence of willful failure to properly support and maintain the child, the mother is entitled to judgment in her favor, and the judgment of the Probate Court is contrary to law.
This court, confronted with the summary and salutary principle as is authorized by Section See Barton v. Paratore, 68 Ohio Law Abs.