Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2101.24

Section 2101.24’s plenary-power grant to the probate court does not give a juvenile court the same powers through R.C. 2151.23(A)(4), which incorporates only powers in Chapters 5122 and 5123.

In re Hamil · filed 1982-02-03

Jeffrey’s parents rely upon R. C. 2151.23(A)(4), in conjunction with R. C. 2101.24, to substantiate their assertion that the Juvenile Court possesses the requisite jurisdiction and power to order the state, through ODMH, to pay for Jeffrey’s care at Bellefaire. ... In order to reach this conclusion one must ignore the language of R. C. 2151.23(A)(4), which only grants the Juvenile Court those powers found in R. C. Chapters 5122 and 5123, and does not bestow upon it those powers found in R. C. Chapter 2101. Consequently, unless another statute exists which affirmatively grants the Juvenile Court authority to order ODMH to pay for Jeffrey’s care in a private psychiatric facility, the courts below were acting beyond the scope of their jurisdiction when they made such orders.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court plenary legal and equitable power only over matters properly before it; an executor's unliquidated fraud claim not timely presented under R.C. Chapter 2117 is outside that power in an exceptions hearing.

In re Estate of Etzensperger · filed 1984-01-11

Accordingly, appellant’s fraud claim was not properly before the court for purposes of R.C. 2101.24 in the hearing on exceptions.

Section 2101.24(C) gives a probate court plenary legal and equitable power over matters properly before it, including deciding the applicability and effect of another statute, but not matters outside estate administration.

In Re Estate of Wolfe · filed 1991-03-22(C)

R.C. 2101.24(C) provides that a probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose of any matter properly before it, unless that power is expressly denied or limited by a section of the Revised Code. Therefore, the probate court also had the jurisdiction to determine whether R.C. 2105.19 was applicable in this case and, if so, the effect that the application of the statute had upon the assets of the estate and the distribution of those assets.

Section 2101.24(C) gives probate courts plenary power over matters properly before them, but that power is limited when other statutes, including R.C. Chapter 5122, do not authorize the court to order the Department of Mental Health to fund a private placement.

Berger v. Clermont County Alcohol, Drug Addiction & Mental Health Services Board · filed 1993-02-16(C)

R.C. 2101.24(C), however, must be read in conjunction with R.C. Chapter 5122, and more specifically R.C. 5122.15, to determine the jurisdiction and the powers a probate court has over mentally ill persons. ... Since R.C. Chapter 5122 must be read in conjunction with R.C. 2101.24 and probate courts’ plenary powers, we are of the opinion that the Clermont County Probate Court acted beyond the scope of its jurisdiction when it ordered the department of mental health to fund the cost of Berger’s placement. Such action was limited by an existing Ohio statute.

Section 2101.24(A)(2)(a) gives a probate court exclusive jurisdiction when another statute expressly confers jurisdiction on it and no statute confers jurisdiction on another court or agency, while subsection (C) gives the court plenary power to dispose fully of a properly pending matter, including ordering state funding integral to a commitment determination.

In re Hays · filed 1995-10-05(A)(2)(a), (C)

We therefore conclude that a county probate court possesses jurisdiction to issue an order of involuntary commitment for mental health treatment pursuant to R.C. 2101.24 and 5122.15. ... The authority of a probate court to issue an order to the state to provide funding is expressly conferred by R.C. 2101.24(C), inasmuch as payment for the treatment is in aid of its jurisdiction to adjudicate a matter properly before it (i.e., the determination of the least restrictive environment for commitment of a mentally ill individual).

Section 2101.24(C) gives a probate court plenary legal and equitable power to fully dispose of any matter properly before it unless the Revised Code expressly limits or denies that power.

In Re Mantia-Allen · filed 1996-01-12(C)

Furthermore, R.C. 2101.24(C) provides the probate court with “plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied” by the Revised Code.

Section 2101.24(C) gives a probate court plenary power to fully dispose of matters properly before it unless the Revised Code expressly limits or denies that power.

Kniskern v. Township of Somerford · filed 1996-06-28(C)

R.C. 2101.24(C) states: ... “The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.” ... In conjunction with this interpleader action, Western Reserve surrendered what it claimed were the policy limits of Nino Cavaliere’s auto insurance policy in an effort to settle the claims against the policy. ... In making the determination whether the settlement was fair and equitable, the probate court was required to determine the limits of liability under the policy. ... Thus, the Trumbull County Probate Court order limiting Western Reserve’s liability under the policy was a valid exercise of that court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 2101.24(A) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over appointing and removing guardians, controlling their conduct, and settling their accounts, while subsection (C) gives them plenary power to fully dispose of matters properly before them unless a statute expressly limits that power.

In Re: Guardianship of Riegel, Unpublished Decision (7-6-1999) · filed 1999-07-06(A), (C)

Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A), the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction "[t]o appoint and remove guardians and testamentary trustees, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts." Thus, the probate court may properly investigate and adjudicate all matters substantially related to the guardianship, so long as due process of law is observed in the proceedings. ... R.C. 2101.24(C) provides the probate court with "plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by statute."

Section 2101.24(C) gives the probate court plenary legal and equitable power to grant any relief needed to fully adjudicate a matter within its jurisdiction, unless the Revised Code expressly limits or denies that power.

McDonald & Co. Securities, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n · filed 2000-07-21(C)

Nevertheless, R.C. 2101.24(C) provides that “[t]he probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.” This statute authorizes any relief required to fully adjudicate the subject matter within the probate court’s jurisdiction.

Section 2101.24(C) gives the probate court plenary power to fully dispose of matters properly before it unless the Revised Code expressly limits or denies that power.

In the Matter of Hoke, Unpublished Decision (9-4-2003) · filed 2003-09-04(C)

The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over marriage-license matters and plenary power to fully dispose of matters properly before it.

In the Matter of Nash, Unpublished Decision (12-31-2003) · filed 2003-12-31(A)(1)(f), (C)

The probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to grant marriage licenses, R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(f), and possesses "plenary power * * * to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court * * *." R.C. 2101.24(C). When processing a marriage license application, "[i]f the probate judge is satisfied that there is no legal impediment and if one or both of the parties are present, the probate judge shall grant the marriage license." R.C. 3101.05(A). Thus, although a marriage license will normally issue based upon the sworn license application and submission of proper identification, when evidence arises that indicates the possible existence of a legal impediment to the marriage or raises a question regarding an applicant's identification, the court can do what is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to quell the court's concerns and properly dispose of the matter.

Section 2101.24(C) gives the probate court plenary power to fully dispose of matters properly before it, but does not expand the court’s statutory subject-matter jurisdiction to hear an independent tort claim.

Roll v. Edwards · filed 2004-02-17(C)

R.C. 2101.24(C) provides: “The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.” ... While the powers of the probate division are plenary, they are so only with respect to matters “properly before the court.” ... We cannot interpret the statutory grant of plenary powers to enlarge the statutory grant of jurisdiction to the probate division.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over guardianship matters, including directing and controlling a guardian's conduct and settling the guardian's accounts, and grants plenary power to fully dispose of matters properly before it.

Rowan v. McLaughlin, Unpublished Decision (7-7-2005) · filed 2005-07-07(A)(1)(e), (C)

R.C. 2101.24(A) grants the probate court exclusive jurisdiction "[t]o appoint and remove guardians, conservators, and testamentary trustees, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts." R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e). ... Further, R.C. 2101.24(C) grants the probate division "plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code."

Section 2101.24 gives the Probate Court plenary power to dispose of matters properly before it unless another statute expressly limits or denies that power.

State ex rel. Portage County Welfare Dept. v. Summers · filed 1974-05-08

The portion of R. C. 2101.24, emphasized above, would appear to divest the Probate Court of its power to exercise original and exclusive jurisdiction over adoption pro*150■ceedings to the extent that other statutes purport to expressly limit or deny the power.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court plenary authority at law and in equity to fully resolve any matter properly before it unless a statute expressly limits or denies that power.

Grannen v. Ey · filed 1974-11-18

R. C. 2101.24 provides, in pertinent part: ... “The probate court shall have plenary power at law and in equity fully to dispose of any matter properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by statute.” This is consonant with the modern and prevailing view that the ends of justice are expedited and best served by the disposition of as many issues as is possible in a single proceeding.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court plenary power only over matters properly within its jurisdiction, so it does not authorize the court to adjudicate an independent claim for money damages outside that jurisdiction.

Alexander v. Compton · filed 1978-05-10

Since appellants’ action, based upon fraud, seeks not only to vacate the order of the Probate Court, but also seeks money damages, the court is not entirely within the statutory jurisdiction granted to the Probate Court by R. C. 2109.35(A). Neither is it within the enumerated areas of jurisdiction granted the Probate Court in R. C. 2101.-24. ... The equity power granted in these sections has been narrowly interpreted. ... The court concluded that an action for money damages is not within the jurisdiction of the Probate Court. ... The appellants, then, initiated their action for fraud and damages in the proper court.

Section 2101.24(C) gives the probate court plenary legal and equitable power to fully dispose of matters properly before it, unless a statute expressly limits or denies that power.

Burris v. Grange Mutual Companies · filed 1989-10-18(C)

To accomplish that purpose, the probate court, as part of its plenary powers, could interpret the terms of the insurance policy for the limited purpose of determining the coverage available to satisfy the wrongful death claim.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court plenary power to dispose fully of matters properly before it, including declaratory-judgment actions involving estate administration.

Carlin v. Mambuca · filed 1994-05-23

The jurisdiction of the probate court is defined by R.C. 2101.24, which provides in pertinent part: ... ‘(C) The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by statute.’

Section 2101.24(C) gives the probate court plenary power in law and equity to fully dispose of any matter properly before it, unless another Revised Code section expressly limits or denies that power.

Goldberg v. Maloney · filed 2006-11-08(C)

“Probate courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and probate proceedings are thus restricted to those actions permitted by statute and by the Ohio Constitution. ... In addition, pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(C), “[t]he probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.”

Section 2101.24(C) gives the probate court plenary power to dispose fully of matters properly before it unless the Revised Code expressly limits or denies that power.

In Re Guardianship of Bombrys, L-08-1069 (8-1-2008) · filed 2008-08-01(C)

"The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code." R.C. 2101.24(C). ... "Nevertheless, since there is no statute expressly prohibiting such application, we shall defer to the "plenary power" of the probate court in such matters and conclude that the court may entertain such a request."

Section 2101.24(C) gives a probate court plenary authority in law and equity to fully dispose of matters properly before it, including collateral matters and relief needed to adjudicate subject matter within its exclusive jurisdiction.

Lanzalaco v. Lanzalaco · filed 2012-09-06(C)

Although the probate court’s jurisdiction is limited to those powers conferred by statute, the probate court has supplemental authority to address collateral matters, including “plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court.” R.C. 2101.24(C); State ex rel. Sladoje v. Belskis, 149 Ohio App.3d 190, 2002-Ohio-4505, 776 N.E.2d 557 (10th Dist.). The legislative grant of plenary power authorizes the probate court to grant any relief required to fully adjudicate the subject matter within the probate court’s exclusive jurisdiction. State ex rel. Lewis v. Moser, 72 Ohio St.3d 25, 29, 647 N.E.2d 155 (1995), citing Goff v. Ameritrust Co., N.A., 8th Dist. Nos. 65196 and 66016, 1994 WL 173544 (May 5, 1994).

Section 2101.24's declaratory-judgment and plenary-power provisions do not create probate-court jurisdiction over a rejected creditor's claim when the court otherwise lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Kraus v. Hanna, Unpublished Decision (7-23-2004) · filed 2004-07-23(A)(1)(l), (C)

The probate court did not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of a rejected creditor's claim. Moreover, the Revised Code sections pertaining to declaratory judgment actions do not vest the probate court with jurisdiction. Rather, these sections are only applicable if the probate court already has jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Section 2101.24(C) gives probate courts plenary power to dispose fully of matters properly before them unless the Revised Code expressly limits or denies that power.

State ex rel. Chester Twp. v. Grendell (Slip Opinion) · filed 2016-04-14(C)

Under R.C. 2101.24(C), probate courts have plenary power to “dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court,” unless the power is expressly limited or denied by the Revised Code. Without the power to investigate the management of park districts and issue orders compelling compliance with R.C. Chapter 1545, a probate court’s power to appoint and remove park-district commissioners would be hollow.

Section 2101.24(C) gives a probate court plenary authority at law and in equity to fully dispose of matters properly before it unless the Revised Code expressly limits or denies that authority.

Zarlenga v. Zarlenga · filed 2020-12-24(C)

“The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.” R.C. 2101.24(C).

Section 2101.24(C) gives the probate court plenary legal and equitable power over matters properly before it, unless another Revised Code section expressly limits or denies that power.

Weinberg v. Merriman · filed 2024-03-14(C)

“The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.”

Section 2101.24(C) gives the probate court plenary legal and equitable power to fully dispose of any matter properly before it unless a section of the Revised Code expressly limits or denies that power.

Carter v. Children's Emergency Servs., Inc. · filed 2020-02-14(C)

“The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.”

Section 2101.24(C) gives a probate court plenary power over matters properly before it, including inherent and statutory authority to appoint a special prosecutor unless the Revised Code expressly limits or denies that authority.

State ex rel. Yost v. Costine · filed 2026-03-31(C)

By statute, a probate court has the "plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code." ... The Probate Court here is constitutionally mandated as a division of the common pleas court and has exclusive jurisdiction over the Malfeasance Case pursuant to statute. As such, the statute grants it the same inherent and statutory authority as a general division common pleas court to appoint a special prosecutor, unless that authority has been expressly limited or denied by the Revised Code. That authority has not been expressly limited or denied under the Misconduct Statutes or any other section of the Revised Code.

Section 2101.24(C) allows a probate court to consider a beneficiary’s restitution recoveries when evaluating equitable distributions from a trust before it.

In re Estate of Hersch · filed 2014-02-21(C)

The probate court has “plenary power at law and in equity” to fully dispose of any matter properly before it. R.C. 2101.24(C). The court had jurisdiction over the trusts, and it was fully within the ... court’s power to consider amounts recovered by Hadassah under the restitution order when evaluating whether distributions from the Interim Trust were equitable.

Section 2101.24(0) gives probate divisions plenary powers only over matters properly before them and does not enlarge their statutory jurisdiction.

Oncu v. Bell · filed 1976-01-14(0)

While the powers of the probate division are plenary, they are so only with respect to matters “properly before the court.” R. C. 2101.24(0). This reference to plenary powers cannot be interpreted so as to enlarge the statutory grant of jurisdiction to the probate division.

Section 2101.24's probate-court jurisdiction over guardianship and competency matters is not exclusive when another law, such as Civ. R. 17(B), authorizes a different court to appoint a guardian ad litem.

Dailey v. Dailey · filed 1983-09-22

In addition, R.C. 2101.24 reads in pertinent part: ... “Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive in the probate court unless otherwise provided by law.” ... Civ. R. 17(B) clearly authorizes a court other than the probate court to appoint a guardian ad litem for the protection of an individual the court believes to be incompetent. The probate courts do not possess exclusive jurisdiction in these matters.

Former Section 2101.24(D) gave the probate court jurisdiction over guardians and their accounts, and made that jurisdiction exclusive unless otherwise provided by law.

Caudill v. Caudill · filed 1986-03-25(D)

Former R.C. 2101.24(D) provided (see 140 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1791, 1797) that the probate court had jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians and testamentary trustees, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts. The same section also generally provided that the jurisdiction listed in the section was exclusive in the probate court unless otherwise provided by law.

Section 2101.24(C) gives the probate court plenary power to dispose fully of matters properly before it, including matters concerning a guardian’s use of the ward’s funds, unless a statute expressly limits or denies that power.

In Re Rauscher · filed 1987-10-19(C)

The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity, but only to the extent that a matter is properly before the court. R.C. 2101.24(C); Oncu v. Bell (1976), 49 Ohio App. 2d 109, 3 O.O. 3d 175, 359 N.E. 2d 712. ... Any action on the part of the guardian which would affect the ward’s funds would be one that touches the guardianship. The court would then have jurisdiction to hear the matter under its power to direct and control guardians and fiduciaries.

Section 2101.24 does not bar a common-pleas action for money damages resulting from fraud merely because related probate relief was available.

Dipaolo v. Devictor · filed 1988-06-30

Defendants, on the other hand, contend that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction of all probate matters. R.C. 2101.24. They maintain that plaintiffs should have filed for relief from judgment under Civ. R. 60(B) or filed exceptions to the final account or filed an action alleging fraud committed against the probate court pursuant to R.C. 2109.35. Although any of such actions, if timely filed, might have allowed plaintiffs some relief, the availability of such alternatives did not foreclose plaintiffs from bringing this action. Moreover, a probate court has no jurisdiction over a claim for money damages resulting from fraud. Alexander v. Compton (1978), 57 Ohio App. 2d 89, 11 O.O. 3d 81, 385 N.E. 2d 638. Hence, the trial court improperly dismissed the complaint on this ground.

Section 2101.24(C) gives the probate court plenary legal and equitable power to fully decide matters properly before it, including declaratory-judgment actions concerning estate administration and the validity of inter vivos transfers related to an estate.

Bobko v. Sagen · filed 1989-06-05(C)

The jurisdiction of the probate court is defined by R.C. 2101.24, which provides in pertinent part: ... “(C) The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by statute.” ... Those matters which may properly be placed before the court include declaratory judgment actions involving the administration of an estate. R.C. 2101.24; Corron v. Corron (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 75, 78-79, 531 N.E.2d 708, 711-712. ... Thus, in determining whether a declaratory judgment action may be brought in the probate court to determine the validity of inter vivos transfers, the underlying question is whether the property transferred is related to the administration of an estate. Id. at 79, 531 N.E.2d at 712. ... Applying the foregoing to this action, it is clear that the probate court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the inter vivos transfers to Sagen and Pyle.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over appointing, removing, and terminating guardians, but its plenary power does not authorize it to decide a child's custody after the guardianship ends.

In Re Guardianship of Harrison · filed 1989-08-09(A)(4) (C)

R.C. 2101.24(A)(4) provides the probate court with exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians. The probate court also has “plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by statute.” R.C. 2101.24(C). ... The probate court clearly had jurisdiction to terminate the guardianship of Ryan under R.C. 2101.24(A)(4). ... The probate court’s plenary power could not, therefore, extend the court’s jurisdiction to determine custody once the guardianship had been terminated.

Section 2101.24(c) gives the probate court plenary legal and equitable power over matters properly before it, but does not expand the court's statutory subject-matter jurisdiction.

Friedman v. Friedman · filed 1990-04-25(c)

"The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by statute. ... This reference to plenary powers cannot be interpreted so as to enlarge the statutory grant of jurisdiction to the probate division. ... The probate court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to determine the issue of what assets were marital assets."

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court authority over guardianship matters, but its otherwise plenary power over matters properly before it may be expressly limited by another statute.

In Re Guardianship of Coller · filed 1991-05-31

Thus, under the statute, a probate court’s authority in determining matters properly before it, including guardianship matters, can be expressly limited by statute.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court jurisdiction to control the conduct of a guardian it appoints.

In Re Guardianship of Patrick · filed 1991-09-30

The probate court has jurisdiction to control the conduct of a guardian it appoints. R.C. 2101.24.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate division limited jurisdiction and does not give it jurisdiction over claims for money damages arising from alleged fraud.

Dumas v. Estate of Dumas · filed 1994-03-08

The jurisdiction of the probate division is set forth in R.C. 2101.24. Our holding in Schucker v. Metcalf (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 33, 35, 22 OBR 27, 488 N.E.2d 210, 213, states that pursuant to R.C. 2101.24, "the probate division has no jurisdiction over claims for money damages arising from allegations of fraud." The amended complaint filed by Mrs. Dumas essentially alleges two causes of action: a fraudulent conveyance of assets and fraud. She does not contest the validity of Mr. Dumas's will or challenge the inventory of his probate estate, but instead alleges that he fraudulently transferred assets to an inter vivos trust and did so with the intent to deprive her of her rights under Ohio law. Even though in her amended complaint she seeks an order to rescind the transfer of assets to the trust and return to her certain unspecified property, which order, if granted, may affect the administration of Mr. Dumas's probate estate, her primary aim is still the recovery of monetary damages for the alleged fraud. We therefore hold that the issues raised in the complaint were solely within the jurisdiction of the general division of the court of common pleas.

Section 2101.24(D) gives the probate court jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts, including oversight of a ward's funds.

Gorenflo v. Ohio Department of Human Services · filed 1992-06-26(D)

Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(D) a probate court has jurisdiction “[t]o appoint and remove guardians * * * direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts.” ... The probate court’s continuing jurisdiction over the ward, her funds and her guardian is imposed by statute to ensure that the ward’s property is not squandered during her disability and is preserved until her disabilities of age and health are relieved, save as authorized to be expended for her health, safety, education and the like upon showing of necessity and good cause.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(k) gives the probate court jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions on probate matters against the state, and subsection (C) gives it plenary legal and equitable power to dispose of matters properly before it unless the Revised Code expressly limits or denies that power.

Oakar v. Ohio Department of Mental Retardation · filed 1993-06-21(A)(1)(k), (C)

It is our opinion that the probate court has jurisdiction to entertain a declaratory judgment action on probate matters against the state pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(k) without violating the Court of Claims Act. ... We hold that the probate court has jurisdiction to grant relief in equity on probate matters against the state. ... R.C. 2101.24(C) provides: ... “The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.”

Section 2101.24 gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction to construe wills and render declaratory judgments, while jurisdiction over actions involving charitable trusts is concurrent with the common pleas court's general division.

First National Bank v. Miami University · filed 1997-06-02(A)(1)(j) and (k); (B)(1)(b)

R.C. 2101.24(A)(l)(j) and (k) grant the probate court exclusive jurisdiction “[t]o construe wills” and “[t]o render declaratory judgments.” R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b) grants the probate court jurisdiction, concurrent with the general division of the common pleas court, “to hear and determine * * * [a]ny action that involves * * * a charitable trust.” ... In its complaint, FNB invoked the jurisdiction conferred upon the probate court by R.C. 2101.24 and sought declaratory relief involving the charitable trust created by the testator’s will.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court jurisdiction to render declaratory judgments concerning estate-related property, authority to require fiduciary accountings, and plenary legal and equitable power to fully dispose of matters properly before it.

Sayer v. Epler · filed 1997-07-21(A)(1)(k), (A)(1)(i), (C)

Further, R.C. 2101.24(C) provides: ... “The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.” Based upon the above statutes, we find that the probate court has subject-matter jurisdiction. ... Count Two of Sayer’s amended complaint asks the trial court for a declaratory judgment to determine whether certain assets, now owned by appellee, should be included in the estate. We find that the probate court has subject-matter jurisdiction over declaratory judgments. R.C. 2101.24(A)(l)(k) specifically permits a probate court to render declaratory judgments. ... As to Sayer’s first claim in his complaint, styled “Concealment Action,” we find the trial court also has subject-matter jurisdiction to address this matter. R.C. 2101.24(A)(l)ffi permits the probate court “[t]o direct and control the conduct of fiduciaries and settle their accounts.” We hold that as a fiduciary of the decedent, due to the power of attorney appellee had over the decedent, she can be ordered by the probate court to account for the decedent’s assets.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(j) does not deprive a dissolution court of jurisdiction to incorporate testamentary-disposition provisions into a separation agreement merely because the Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction to construe wills.

Henning v. Henning, Unpublished Decision (3-30-1998) · filed 1998-03-30(A)(1)(j)

The dissolution order and the separation agreement sub judice were clearly within the trial court's jurisdiction. ... Based upon this analysis, the cited provisions are not void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but are voidable.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive original jurisdiction over removing a guardian.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of Herr, Unpublished Decision (9-2-1998) · filed 1998-09-02

Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24, the removal of a guardian lies exclusively within the province of the Probate Court. The court has plenary, exclusive, and original jurisdiction in the removal of a guardian.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(b) and (c) gives probate courts general, exclusive authority over letters testamentary and of administration and over the conduct, accounts, and distribution of estates, but does not itself confer specific subject-matter jurisdiction to administer a particular estate.

State ex rel. Lee v. Trumbull County Probate Court · filed 1998-10-14(A)(1)(b) and (c)

Because the probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction, probate proceedings are restricted to those actions permitted by statute and by the Constitution. ... Under R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(b) and (c), probate courts have general, exclusive jurisdiction “[t]o grant and revoke letters testamentary and of administration” and “[t]o direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators and order the distribution of estates.” These provisions, however, do not bestow specific subject-matter jurisdiction to administer Isaly’s estate here.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court jurisdiction over an action involving an inter vivos trust and powers of attorney.

Flaherty v. Scott, Unpublished Decision (2-16-2000) · filed 2000-02-16

The first and second assignments of errors of appellant David J. Albanese, Scott's nephew, are overruled, as the probate court has jurisdiction over an action involving an intervivos trust and powers of attorney.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to order the distribution of estates, including distribution of a wrongful-death award among beneficiaries.

McMullen v. Ohio State University Hospitals · filed 2000-04-12(A)(1)(c)

In contrast, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to “order the distribution of estates.” R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c). This includes the jurisdiction to distribute among the beneficiaries the amount received by a personal representative in an action for wrongful death. R.C. 2125.03(A)(1). In that case, “[t]he court that appointed the personal representative * * * shall adjust the share of each beneficially in a manner that is equitable, having due regard for the injury and loss to each beneficiary resulting from the death and for the age and condition of the beneficiaries.” Id. However, this section does not empower the probate court to determine collateral-source deductions in actions brought against a state university, and that function remains exclusively .with the Court of Claims.

Section 2101.24(A)(2) gives the Probate Court exclusive jurisdiction over a subject matter when another statute expressly confers jurisdiction on it and no statute confers jurisdiction on another court or agency, while subsection (C) gives it plenary power to fully dispose of matters properly before it unless expressly limited.

State Ex Rel. Goldberg v. Probate Court, Unpublished Decision (11-14-2000) · filed 2000-11-14(A)(2), (C)

Thus, we hold that respondents had subject matter jurisdiction to institute prejudgment attachment proceedings in Probate Court, pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(2). ... The Probate Court may utilize prejudgment attachment of property pursuant to its plenary powers under R.C. 2101.24, but it must do so in conjunction with the requirements of R.C. Chapter 2715.

Section 2101.24 limits probate-court jurisdiction to matters properly within its statutory authority, so the court may not oversee distribution of an adult's personal-injury proceeds when no guardianship remains.

In the Matter of Altomare, Unpublished Decision (1-23-2001) · filed 2001-01-23(A)(1)(e), (C)

Therefore, pursuant to R.C.2101.24(C), the probate court should have refrained from overseeing the disbursement of proceeds regarding Jason's claim, and transferred such matter to the proper court.

Section 2101.24(A)(2) grants a probate court exclusive jurisdiction only when another statute expressly gives it jurisdiction and no statute gives that subject to another court or agency; subsection (C)'s plenary authority does not cover matters not properly before the court.

State ex rel. Goldberg v. Mahoning County Probate Court · filed 2001-09-05(A)(2) and (C)

In addition, neither R.C. 2101.24(A)(2) nor (C) confers jurisdiction on Judge Maloney and the probate court to issue prejudgment attachment orders in concealment proceedings. Under R.C. 2101.24(A)(2), the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over a particular subject matter if (a) another section of the Revised Code expressly confers jurisdiction over that subject matter upon the probate court and (b) no section of the Revised Code expressly confers jurisdiction over that subject matter upon any other court or agency. No statutory section expressly confers jurisdiction on probate courts to consider concealment actions concerning proceeds from wrongful death claims or provides for prejudgment attachment of personal property in that or any other context. And R.C. 2715.01(A) and (D) specifically divest probate courts of authority to issue prejudgment attachment orders in concealment actions, which are special, quasi-criminal proceedings. R.C. 2101.24(C), which details a probate court’s plenary authority, is likewise inapplicable because a prejudgment attachment within a concealment proceeding is not “properly before the court.”

Section 2101.24 limits probate-court jurisdiction to matters properly before the probate division and gives the court plenary power over those matters, including guardianship matters, but that power does not continue over an adult after the guardianship ends.

In Re Layshock, Unpublished Decision (12-28-2001) · filed 2001-12-28(C), (A)(1), (A)(1)(e)

The scope of probate court jurisdiction is provided for and restricted under R.C. § 2101.24(C), which states that, "the probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before [it], unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by statute." R.C. § 2101.24. Matters properly before the probate division are enumerated under R.C. § 2101.24 (A)(1). Relevant to the matter before us, R.C. §2101.24(A)(1)(e) grants the probate court authority to appoint and remove guardians, conservators and testamentary trustees; direct and control their conduct; and settle their accounts. Accordingly, the probate court possesses continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters regarding a guardian or ward.

Section 2101.24(1)(c) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction to control executors' and administrators' conduct, settle their accounts, and order estate distributions.

In the Matter of the Estate Hadorn, Unpublished Decision (5-31-2002) · filed 2002-05-31(1)(c)

The probate court is given exclusive jurisdiction to "direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators and order the distribution of estates." R.C. 2101.24(1)(c).

Section 2101.24(C) gives the probate court plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter properly before it, while § 2101.24(A)(1)(c) and (m) give it exclusive jurisdiction over fiduciary conduct and accounts and estate distribution.

Talbott v. Fisk, Unpublished Decision (12-17-2002) · filed 2002-12-17(A)(1)(c), (A)(1)(m), (C)

"The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court * * *." R.C. 2101.24(C); Wolfrum v. Wolfrum (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 237, paragraph one of the syllabus. The probate court further has exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors, administrators and fiduciaries, and order the distribution of estates. R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c) and (m).

Section 2101.24 authorizes the probate court to hear conservatorship proceedings.

State v. Costine, Unpublished Decision (12-19-2002) · filed 2002-12-19

Furthermore, the probate court is authorized by law to hear conservatorship proceedings. R.C. 2101.24 and R.C. 2111.021.

Section 2101.24(C) gives the probate court plenary legal and equitable power over matters properly before it, but that power does not extend to matters outside the probate court's subject-matter jurisdiction, such as adjudicating the merits of a creditor's claim against a decedent's estate.

Bank One v. Johnson, Unpublished Decision (12-19-2003) · filed 2003-12-19(C)

R.C. 2305.01 confers original jurisdiction on the courts of common pleas in all civil cases in which the sum or matter in dispute exceeds the jurisdiction of the county courts. R.C. 2101.24(C) provides: "The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code." ... R.C. 2117.17 authorizes the probate court to approve the action of an executor in allowing a claim. However, if the court disapproves the executor's allowance of the claim, or if the executor rejects the claim, for whatever reason, the claimant must commence an action on the claim within two months or be forever barred. Id.; R.C.2117.12. That action must be commenced in the general division of the court of common pleas. In re Estate of Vitelli (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 181. Therefore, the probate court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of a creditor's claim against a decedent's estate.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over specified estate and fiduciary matters and plenary power only over matters properly before it; it does not itself authorize the court to appoint counsel to pursue an appeal for an estate.

State Ex Rel. Marsteller v. Maloney, Unpublished Decision (4-14-2005) · filed 2005-04-14(A)(1)(c), (A)(1)(m), (C)

"The Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction, unless otherwise provided by law, as to all matters set forth in Section 2101.24, Revised Code, and as to all matters pertaining directly to the administration of estates." ... Probate court proceedings are restricted to those actions permitted by statute and by the Constitution, since the probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction. ... Similarly, in this case, respondent has been unable to point to any statutory section that "expressly confers jurisdiction" on the probate court to appoint counsel for an estate or to appeal a decision on behalf of an estate. ... However, the probate court's plenary power is not unlimited. ... And, as the Goldberg court observed, a probate court's plenary power is inapplicable when the matter is not "`properly before the court.'" ... This matter was not properly before the probate court.

Section 2101.24 gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction to construe and determine the validity of wills and plenary power to fully dispose of matters properly before them, unless the Revised Code limits that power.

Estate of Snell v. Kilburn · filed 2005-12-23(A)(1)(k) and (p), (C)

In enacting R.C. 2101.24, the General Assembly has specifically set forth those matters that are properly placed before the probate court, one of which is the exclusive jurisdiction to construe and determine the validity of wills. ... Whenever a probate court has a case before it, it also “has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.” R.C. 2101.24(C).

Section 2101.24 authorizes a probate court to render declaratory judgments but does not expand the subject-matter jurisdiction otherwise granted to the court.

Nemcek v. Paskey · filed 2006-04-06

The probate court has jurisdiction to render declaratory judgments pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2721 and R.C. 2101.24.

Section 2101.24(A)(2) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over a subject matter when another Revised Code section expressly confers jurisdiction over it on the probate court and no other court or agency is expressly given jurisdiction.

In the Matter of the Adoption of Reed, Unpublished Decision (4-17-2006) · filed 2006-04-17(A)(2)

The probate court derives its subject matter jurisdiction from R.C. 2101.24. While the subject matter of adoption proceedings is not specifically mentioned in the statute, R.C. 2101.24(A)(2) provides: "In addition to the exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon the probate court by division (A)(1) of this section, the probate court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over a particular subject matter if both of the following apply: (a) Another section of the Revised Code expressly confers jurisdiction over that subject matter upon the probate court. [And,] (b) No section of the Revised Code expressly confers jurisdiction over that subject matter upon any other court or agency."

Section 2101.24 limits the probate court's jurisdiction to matters authorized by statute and grants plenary power only over matters properly before the court.

Corron v. Corron · filed 1988-12-14(C)

It is well-settled that proceedings in probate court are restricted to those actions permitted by statute and by the Constitution, since the probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction. ... The statute granting that jurisdiction is R.C. 2101.24(C): “The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by statute.” Those matters that may be properly placed before the court are enumerated and limited in scope by R.C. 2101.24(A) to (P), now (A)(1) to (18), amended in March 1986.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over specified estate-administration and declaratory-judgment matters, including matters for which no other court has express jurisdiction.

Lamar v. Washington, Unpublished Decision (3-27-2006) · filed 2006-03-27(A)(1), (A)(2)

The jurisdiction of the court is specifically defined by R.C. 2101.24. Id. That section provides: ... Thus, taken together these sections give the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over declaratory actions brought "to determine any question arising out of the administration of the estate."

Section 2101.24(C) gives probate courts plenary power at law and in equity to fully dispose of matters properly before them, unless the Revised Code expressly limits or denies that power.

National City Bank v. De Laville · filed 2006-11-09(C)

Specifically, R.C. 2101.24 provides that the probate court has jurisdiction to “direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators and order the distribution of estates” and to render declaratory judgments. This section also provides that the probate court has “plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.” R.C. 2101.24(C).

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to take proof of wills.

Sull v. Kaim · filed 2007-06-28

While a probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to take proof of wills, R.C. 2101.24, as a general matter, the court must admit to probate a will that appears on its face to comply “with the law in force at the time of the execution of the will in the jurisdiction in which it was executed, or with the law in force in this state at the time of the death of the testator, or with the law in force in the jurisdiction in which the testator was domiciled at the time of his death.” R.C. 2107.18.

Section 2101.24 grants probate courts general jurisdiction, but it does not authorize them to investigate alleged physical or sexual abuse that occurred years earlier.

State Ex Rel. Rittner v. Bumb, Unpublished Decision (9-27-2007) · filed 2007-09-27

Finally, it is a well-settled principle of law that probate courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are permitted to exercise only the authority granted to them by statute and by the Ohio Constitution. Corron v. Corron (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 75, 77. The general grant of jurisdiction to probate courts is found in R.C. 2101.24. This statute does confer jurisdiction on respondent to conduct an investigation of physical or sexual abuse that allegedly occurred several years ago.

Section 2101.24 gives probate courts jurisdiction over probate and testamentary matters, the appointment of administrators, and the settlement of executors' and administrators' accounts, but does not include legal-malpractice claims.

Batteiger v. Deutsch, Ca021933 (3-28-2008) · filed 2008-03-28

Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24, a probate court has jurisdiction in probate and testamentary matters, the appointment of administrators, and the settlement of accounts of executors and administrators. Legal malpractice claims are not listed in R.C. 2101.24.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction, unless otherwise provided by law, over the matters listed in the statute and matters pertaining directly to the administration of estates.

Gregor Assoc. Co. v. Friedman Assoc., 91181 (10-2-2008) · filed 2008-10-02(A)(1)

Thus, pursuant to the foregoing statute, it is well settled that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction, unless otherwise provided by law, as to all matters set forth in R.C. 2101.24 and as to all matters pertaining directly to the administration of estates.

Section 2101.24 gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over specified estate-administration matters, including controlling executors' and administrators' conduct, settling their accounts, and ordering estate distributions.

Farm Supply Ctr. v. Smith, 2008-Ca-13 (10-15-2008) · filed 2008-10-15

A probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction. R.C. 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over various actions, including directing and controlling the conduct and settling the accounts of executors and administrators and ordering the distribution of estates. Here, Gorsky's estate or representative was never named as a party defendant.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(b) gives Ohio probate courts exclusive jurisdiction to grant and revoke letters testamentary and of administration.

Black v. Aristech Chem. Co., 07ca3155 (12-23-2008) · filed 2008-12-23(A)(1)(b)

R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(b) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction "[t]o grant and revoke letters testamentary and of administration."

Section 2101.24 limits the probate court's jurisdiction to matters properly placed before it by statute; its concurrent and plenary powers do not enlarge that jurisdiction.

Bishop v. Bishop · filed 2010-06-22(A)(1)(a)-(ee), (B)(1), (C)

In enacting R.C. 2101.24, the General Assembly has specifically set forth those matters that are properly placed before the probate court. Those matters that may be properly and exclusively placed before the court are enumerated and limited in scope by R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(a) to (ee). In addition to those matters over which the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction, R.C. 2101.24(B)(1) provides: “The probate court has concurrent jurisdiction with, and the same powers at law and in equity as, the general division of the court of common pleas * * * to hear and determine * * *: (a) If jurisdiction relative to a particular subject matter is stated to be concurrent in a section of the Revised Code or has been construed by judicial decision to be concurrent, any action that involves that subject matter.” ... Further, R.C. 2101.24(C) provides: “The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.” ... We cannot interpret the statutory grant of plenary powers to enlarge the statutory grant of jurisdiction to the probate division. ... Because it does not appear that the claims of appellant, as an equitable owner, for reformation of documents and imposition of a constructive trust were cognizable in the probate court nor barred by subsequent action in the common pleas court, we find that the common pleas court erred in dismissing them.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court authority to require an estate beneficiary to satisfy an estate debt through a charge against the beneficiary's distributive share.

In Re Estate of Shively v. Peterman, Unpublished Decision (7-7-2004) · filed 2004-07-07

Under such Section, we find that the court did possess the jurisdictional authority to, in effect, require that Appellant save the estate harmless as to such debt by a charge against her distributive share.

Section 2101.24 specifies the probate court’s jurisdiction and does not include legal-malpractice or breach-of-contract claims.

Buckman-Peirson v. Brannon · filed 2004-11-05

The General Assembly, in R.C. 2101.24, has specifically stated the probate court’s jurisdiction. Neither legal-malpractice nor breach-of-contract claims are listed in that section.

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives the probate court concurrent jurisdiction and equivalent legal and equitable powers to hear actions involving a power of attorney, including a durable power of attorney.

Rusnak v. Fleming · filed 2007-11-01(B)(1)(b)

R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b) provides: “The probate court has concurrent jurisdiction with, and the same powers at law and in equity as, the general division of the court of common pleas * * * to hear and determine * * * [a]ny action that involves * * * a power of attorney, including, but not limited to, a durable power of attorney * * *.”

Section 2101.24(C) permits the probate court to hear declaratory-judgment actions involving the administration of an estate.

Kozak v. Jackson, Unpublished Decision (1-10-2008) · filed 2008-01-10(C)

Those matters which may properly be placed before the court include declaratory judgment actions involving the administration of an estate. R.C. 2101.24; Corron v. Corron (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 75, 78-79,531 N.E.2d 708, 711-712.

The version of § 2101.24 in effect when a probate action is filed governs the probate court’s jurisdiction, and the statute did not authorize the court to hear an intentional-interference-with-inheritance claim.

Ross v. Hornack · filed 2013-05-09(B)(1)(c)

Moreover, although appellant’s counsel argues that the current version of R.C. 2101.24, the statute setting forth jurisdiction of the probate court, does give the court authority to hear the interference claim, we note that the current version of R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(c) was not in effect at the time Ross filed her action. The complaint was filed June 8, 2012, so the version of R.C. 2101.24 in effect at that time was 2011 Ohio S.B. 117, effective Mar. 22, 2012. That version does not contain the language used in the current version of R.C. 2101.24 (2012 H.B. 479, effective Mar. 27, 2013). Inasmuch as the probate court is a creature of statute and only has the jurisdiction specifically conferred on it by statute, Corron v. Corron, 40 Ohio St.3d 75, 531 N.E.2d 708 (1988), paragraph one of the syllabus, the version of R.C. 2101.24 in effect at the time Ross filed her complaint controlled the probate court’s jurisdiction. Nothing in the statute granted the court authority to determine an interference with inheritance claim.

Section 2101.24(A)(1) grants the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over the statutory probate matters listed there, but does not place fraud claims for money damages within that exclusive jurisdiction.

Widdig v. Watkins · filed 2013-08-22(A)(1)

The probate court is a court of limited and special jurisdiction. It has only the powers granted to it by statute. ... R.C. 2101.24(A)(1) states in pertinent part as follows: ... “Except as otherwise provided by law, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction: ...” ... Furthermore, as recognized by the Ohio Supreme Court, “generally speaking, the probate division has no jurisdiction over claims for money damages arising from allegations of fraud.” Schucker, supra, at 35. We therefore hold that dismissal by the trial court, to the extent that it relied upon Civ.R. 12(B)(1), constituted error under the circumstances of this case.

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives probate courts concurrent jurisdiction over actions involving inter vivos trusts, and subsection (C) gives them plenary power to dispose fully of matters properly before them unless limited by statute.

Galloway v. Galloway · filed 2017-01-12(B)(1)(b), (C)

A probate court has concurrent jurisdiction with, and the same powers at law and in equity as, the general division of the court of common pleas * * * to hear and determine “any action that involves an inter vivos trust.” R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b). ... In this case, the probate court’s jurisdiction over the underlying action regarding the Revocable Living Trust of William Galloway (“Trust”) was within the probate court’s concurrent jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b). Accordingly, the probate court was within its jurisdiction when it entered a judgment in favor of Galloway that he obtain the two properties under the Trust. ... Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(C), “the probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by statute.”

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(b) and (c) gives probate courts general, exclusive jurisdiction to grant and revoke letters testamentary and of administration, and to control executors’ and administrators’ conduct, settle their accounts, and order estate distributions.

In re Estate of Torbett · filed 2017-02-06(A)(1)(b) and (c)

It is a well-settled that probate courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that are permitted to exercise only the authority granted to them by statute and by the Ohio Constitution. ... Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(b) and (c), this includes the general, exclusive jurisdiction "[t]o grant and revoke letters testamentary and of administration" and "[t]o direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators and order the distribution of estates." ... In so holding, contrary to Tromblay's claim otherwise, we note that the Fayette County Probate Court's decision was not a collateral attack on a decision made by the Franklin County Probate Court, but rather a proper exercise of the Fayette County Probate Court's jurisdiction as conferred by R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(b), (c), and 2107.11(A)(1).

Section 2101.24(A)(2) gives a probate court jurisdiction only when another statute expressly confers it and no other court or agency has jurisdiction, while subsection (C) does not independently expand that jurisdiction.

In Re Creation of a Park Dist. Within Chester Twp. · filed 2017-05-30(A)(2), (C)

R.C. 2101.24 is silent with respect to the probate court’s jurisdiction over park districts. Instead, R.C. 2101.24(A)(2) provides that probate courts have jurisdiction if another section of the Revised Code expressly confers jurisdiction over that subject matter upon the probate court and no other section of the Revised Code confers jurisdiction over that subject matter upon any other court or agency. ... R.C. 2101.24(C) is not an independent source of the probate court’s jurisdiction. ... Both R.C. 2101.24(C) and 2101.06 are confined by the probate court’s jurisdiction; neither expands it.

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives probate courts concurrent jurisdiction with the common pleas court's general division over actions involving a power of attorney, while Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control executors' and administrators' conduct and settle their accounts.

Fetters v. Duff · filed 2018-02-12(B)(1)(b); (A)(1)(c)

R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b) vests probate courts with concurrent jurisdiction with the general division of the court of common pleas over any action that involves a power of attorney. ... See R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c) (“[T]he probate court has exclusive jurisdiction * * * [t]o direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators * * *”).

Section 2101.24 gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over will-contest actions, but that jurisdiction does not extend to criminal offenses merely because they relate to probate matters.

State v. Dilley · filed 2018-04-19(A)(1)(p), (D)

Moreover, with regard to the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court, we note that R.C. 2101.24(A) provides as follows: (1) Except as otherwise provided by law, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction: (p) To hear and determine actions to contest the validity of wills; *** (D) The jurisdiction acquired by a probate court over a matter or proceeding is exclusive of that of any other probate court, except when otherwise provided by law. (Emphasis added.) ... Therefore, probate courts have no jurisdiction to adjudge criminal offenses even where the crimes relate to probate matters. ... In accordance with the foregoing, we conclude that although the interpleader portion of this matter divided the proceeds of Montgomery’s trust, the probate court had no jurisdiction over Dilley’s criminal conduct.

Section 2101.24(C) gives probate courts plenary jurisdiction to grant relief needed to fully adjudicate matters within their exclusive jurisdiction, while § 2101.24(A)(1)(m) gives them exclusive jurisdiction over fiduciary conduct and account settlements.

Jamison v. Jamison · filed 2018-04-26(C) and (A)(1)(m)

The probate court’s plenary jurisdiction at law and in equity under R.C. 2101.24(C) authorizes any relief required to fully adjudicate the subject matter within the probate court’s exclusive jurisdiction. State ex rel. Lewis v. Moser, 72 Ohio St.3d 25, 29, 647 N.E.2d 155 (1995). A probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control the conduct of fiduciaries, such as Caroline, and settle their accounts. R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(m). Accordingly, in resolving the children’s exceptions to the estate inventory submitted by Caroline, the probate court had plenary jurisdiction to determine that the cottage was not properly included in Ralph’s estate and to impose a constructive trust to protect the children’s interest in the cottage.

Section 2101.24 places claims properly before the probate court within that court's exclusive jurisdiction, so a municipal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over them.

Havens v. Havens · filed 2018-11-26

However, the complaint and all accompanying filings indicate that appellant's action relates to claims properly before the probate court. Since appellant failed to provide this court with the transcript of proceedings, appellant is unable to demonstrate any error on which his appeal is based. As a result, we presume the regularity of the proceeding and find the trial court properly found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under R.C. 2101.24.

Section 2101.24 gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over the matters listed in (A)(1) and over subject matters expressly assigned to them elsewhere by statute under (A)(2), but it does not authorize changing a person's race or nationality.

In re Easterling · filed 2019-04-24(A)(1) (A)(2)

The General Assembly has provided the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over a number of matters related generally to estate administration in R.C. 2101.24(A)(1). The matter placed before the court by Kulika Bey, the changing of one’s race or nationality, is not one of the listed matters. ... R.C. 2101.24(A)(2) also provides that the probate court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over a “subject matter” if another section of the Revised Code expressly confers jurisdiction upon the probate court. ... But nowhere in that provision is the probate court given jurisdiction to change an applicant’s race or nationality. ... Therefore, the probate court had no authority under R.C. 2101.24(A)(2) and 3705.15 to add additional facts to the birth record provided and grant Kulika Bey’s request.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(I) gives the probate court jurisdiction over declaratory-judgment actions, and subsection (A)(1)(m) gives it exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control fiduciaries.

Estate of Welch v. Taylor · filed 2020-12-28(A)(1)(I) and (A)(1)(m)

Furthermore, the probate court has jurisdiction to hear declaratory judgments. R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(I). ... Furthermore, the Ninth District also determined that jurisdiction was proper because the probate court also "has jurisdiction to hear and determine actions involving the misuse of a power of attorney." Estate of Niemi v. Niemi, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2008-T-0082, 2009-Ohio-2090, ¶ 36 (citing R.C. 2101.24[B][1][b]); see also R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(m) (providing that "the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction * * * [t]o direct and control the conduct of fiduciaries").

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction over specified matters, but a dispute unrelated to estate or guardianship administration is outside that probate-court jurisdiction.

VanDeGrift v. Miller · filed 2021-10-22

R.C. 2101.24 governs the jurisdiction of the probate court, which includes the authority to “render declaratory judgments, including but not limited to, those rendered pursuant to Chapter 5817. of the Revised Code.” ... R.C. 2101.24 grants the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over some matters and over other matters concurrent jurisdiction with the general division of the court of common pleas. ... Since the issue before the court was not related to the administration of an estate or guardianship, we conclude that the trial court erred in concluding that jurisdiction was vested in the probate court and in dismissing VanDeGrift’s claims based on its conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction.

Section 2101.24 grants probate courts plenary power over matters properly before them and makes their acquired jurisdiction exclusive, but those grants remain subject to express statutory limits.

Masters v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid · filed 2022-09-02(C) and (D)

R.C. 2101.24 gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters listed in R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)-(2) “except as provided by law,” concurrent jurisdiction with the general division of the common pleas court over the matters listed in R.C. 2101.24(B), and plenary jurisdiction as provided in R.C. 2101.24(C). ... Accordingly, because R.C. 5160.37 provides exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over the matters at issue, the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) places claims implicating control over fiduciaries within the probate court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and subsection (C) gives the court plenary legal and equitable power to fully dispose of matters properly before it.

Jacobson v. Gross · filed 2022-09-29(A)(1)(c) and (C)

Despite its limited jurisdiction, the probate courts also have plenary power “at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.” R.C. 2101.24(C). ... Claims for breach of fiduciary duty that, as here, inexorably implicate control over the conduct of fiduciaries, are within the subject-matter jurisdiction by virtue of R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c). ... Therefore, because the complaint was properly before the court and the Settlement Agreement flowed from the complaint, the probate court had plenary power to enforce the Settlement Agreement.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over matters listed in subsection (A) and concurrent jurisdiction over matters listed in subsection (B), but an intentional-interference claim concerning settled estate distributions may be heard in the common pleas court's general division.

Thomas v. Delgado · filed 2022-11-28(A) (B)

Generally, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over all matters set forth under R.C. 2101.24(A), all matters pertaining to the administration of estates, all matters pertaining to a guardian and his or her ward, and to all matters “touching the guardianship.” ... Further, R.C. 2101.24(B) enumerates the probate court’s concurrent jurisdiction with the general division of the court. ... However, based on the specific facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that the general division of the court had jurisdiction to hear and determine Thomas’s intentional-interference-with-expectancy-of-an-inheritance claim as it relates to the $184,478.00 in unaccounted distributions from Adelina’s estate.

Section 2101.24 does not give probate courts jurisdiction over claims for money damages arising from alleged fraud.

DeSantis v. Estate of DeSantis · filed 2023-02-15

Upon review, the allegations raised in Liliana’s complaints, filed in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, do not fall under the purview of R.C. 2101.24.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(k) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction to construe wills.

In re Estate of Goubeaux · filed 2023-03-03(A)(1)(k)

The trial court undoubtedly had authority to resolve the controversy in that context, as R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(k) vests a probate court with exclusive jurisdiction to construe wills.

Section 2101.24 does not authorize a probate court to grant a common-law name-change request outside the statutory name-change procedure.

In re Millhouse · filed 2024-03-26

In its judgment entry, the court pointed out that (1) appellant failed to follow the applicable statutory procedure set forth in the Ohio Revised Code; (2) R.C. 2101.24 does not give a probate court the authority to consider a request for change of name pursuant to “common law”; and (3) appellant is not, at the present time, eligible for a change of name in view of the rationale set forth in In re Blevins, 4th Dist. Ross No. 22CA7, 2022-Ohio-4812. ... Nevertheless, to invoke the authority of a probate court an applicant must comply with all requirements set forth in the Ohio Revised Code. Here, a probate court does not possess the ability or the authority to wander beyond the statutory provisions to create the type of relief that appellant seeks. Thus, in the case sub judice, the probate court’s judgment does not constitute an abuse of discretion and the court properly denied appellant’s application.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(l) authorizes probate courts to render declaratory judgments, while subsection (A)(1)(m) concerns directing and controlling fiduciaries and settling their accounts, including fiduciaries of an estate.

Francati v. Fuentes · filed 2024-10-24(A)(1)(l) and (A)(1)(m)

R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(l) provides that a probate court has jurisdiction “[t]o render declaratory judgments, including, but not limited to, those rendered pursuant to Chapter 5817. of the Revised Code.” ... Finally, Appellants’ reliance on R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(m), which grants the probate court’s jurisdiction to “direct and control the conduct of fiduciaries and settle their accounts,” is not persuasive because this provision governs the conduct of fiduciaries of an estate.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(a) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to take proof of wills and admit authenticated copies of wills executed, proved, and allowed in another state, territory, or country.

Lynch v. FIG OH18, L.L.C. · filed 2025-05-01(A)(1)(a)

R.C. 2101.24 gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction “to take the proof of wills and to admit to record authenticated copies of wills executed, proved, and allowed in the courts of any other state, territory, or country,” R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(a), “to construe wills,” id. at (A)(1)(k), to render a declaratory judgment as to the validity of a trust or will, id. at (A)(1)(l), and “to hear and determine actions to contest the validity of wills,” id. at (A)(1)(p).

Section 2101.24 gives probate courts plenary power over matters properly before them and exclusive jurisdiction over guardianships, wards, and guardian-petitioned land sales.

Gates v. Werren · filed 2025-07-29(C), (A)(1)(a), (A)(1)(e), (A)(1)(r), and (A)(1)(i)

R.C. 2101.24(C) grants probate court jurisdiction and provides “[t]he probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by statute.” ... The matters a probate court may properly consider are enumerated and limited by scope in R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(a) through (ff). Under this statute, the General Assembly gave probate courts exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts (R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e)); to act for and issue orders regarding wards (R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(r)); and to authorize the sale of lands or interests in lands on petition by guardians (R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(i)).

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(a) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving the administration and construction of wills.

In re Estate of Taylor · filed 2024-04-19(A)(1)(a)

By statute, probate courts have exclusive jurisdiction over various matters, including issues pertaining to administration and construction of wills, conduct of fiduciaries, and hearing and determining actions to contest the validity of wills.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to determine ownership and title issues involving a decedent's property, including related claims against the estate.

Myers v. Clerk of Courts · filed 2026-04-27

Regardless of whether Elvin died testate or intestate, the issue of ownership and title of the Nova falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court. See R.C. 2101.24 (discussing the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court). ... The probate court is the proper jurisdiction to determine to whom ownership of the vehicle transferred upon Elvin's death and to address whether there are any claims against Elvin's estate that might affect ownership of said vehicle.

Section 2101.24 gives probate courts plenary power over matters properly before them, including jurisdiction to enter an order allowing attorney fees as an estate administration expense.

Mary Lee Cadden, of the Estate of George A. Burnett, Deceased v. Russell A. Welch, District Director of Internal Revenue · filed 1962-01-17

Another Ohio statute (R.C. § 2101.24) grants the Probate Judge “Plenary power, at law and in equity, fully to dispose of any matters properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied.” ... It is our conclusion that it was within the jurisdiction of the Probate Court to enter the challenged order; that such order was not contrary to Ohio law, nor did it violate any provision of the Internal Revenue Code.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives the probate court jurisdiction over attorney fees for work securing estate assets.

Golub v. Sharrad · filed 2024-12-24(A)(1)(c)

In reading the pleading before it, the trial court correctly concluded that any compensation for Attorney Golub’s work would have arisen from securing assets for the estates, vesting subject matter jurisdiction with the probate court.

Section 2101.24(P) gives the Probate Division exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine actions contesting the validity of wills, unless otherwise provided by law.

Siebenthal v. Summers · filed 1978-03-23(P)

Also effective January 1, 1976, R. C. 2101.24(P) was amended to confer jurisdiction upon the Probate Division of the Court of Common Pleas “[t]o hear and determine actions to contest the validity of wills.” R. C. 2101.24 provides that “such jurisdiction shall be exclusive in the Probate Court unless otherwise provided by law.”

Section 2101.24(P) gives the probate court general subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine actions contesting the validity of wills.

State ex rel. Smith v. Court of Common Pleas · filed 1982-06-23(P)

Moreover, R. C. 2101.24(P) vests general subject matter jurisdiction over will contest cases in the Probate Court.

Section 2101.24 does not give the probate court jurisdiction over a contract that divides a testator’s estate differently from the will because the contract is not directly related to estate administration.

Zuendel v. Zuendel · filed 1992-05-27(A)(1)(c)

The General Assembly has specifically provided what matters are within the realm of the probate court’s jurisdiction. Clearly, the March 1989 agreement is not one of those matters. ... Accordingly, we find that a probate court does not have jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment as to the validity or enforceability of a contract providing for a division of the testator’s estate different from that provided in the will. Such contracts are not directly related to the administration of the testator’s estate.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(p) gives the probate court jurisdiction to hear and determine actions contesting the validity of wills.

Daubel v. Dineen · filed 2012-12-17(A)(1)(p)

R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(p) provides that probate courts have the jurisdiction to “hear and determine actions to contest the validity of wills.”

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(p) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over will contests, and subsection (C) gives it plenary law-and-equity power to fully resolve matters before it.

Schroeder v. Meyers · filed 2018-07-27(A)(1)(p) (C)

Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(p), the probate court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction involving will contest actions. In conjunction with this, pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(C), the probate court is vested with plenary power in both law and equity to fully dispose of matters before that court unless otherwise indicated by other statutory provisions. Lastly, R.C. 2107.01 establishes that for probate court jurisdictional purposes, “wills” include purported codicils admitted to probate court in connection to wills filed with that court. ... Based upon the foregoing, we find that appellant’s position that the trial court in this matter lacked jurisdiction to consider the testamentary intent of the document, based upon the assertion that the only matter properly before the court was limited to the execution of the document and excluded the surrounding circumstances, is without merit.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(p) gives probate courts jurisdiction over will contests, including challenges to transfers affecting an estate.

Vondrasek v. Heiss · filed 2024-08-12(A)(1)(p)

Probate courts have jurisdiction to hear will contests pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(p). ... However, the probate court has the jurisdiction to address fraudulent or improper inter vivos transfers through a will contest or declaratory judgment action. ... Frederick has not exhausted his probate remedies.

Section 2101.24(A)(4) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over appointing and terminating guardianships and continuing jurisdiction over the ward and guardian.

In Re Miller · filed 1986-07-07(A)(4)

Under R.C. 2101.24(A)(4), the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and terminate guardianships. The court has continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the ward and the guardian. The ward becomes the ward of the court.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(e) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to appoint guardians, subject to other legal rules that can require the court to defer to a domestic-relations court's prior jurisdiction.

In Re Campbell, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2006) · filed 2006-03-31(A)(1)(e)

Although R.C. § 2101.24(A)(1)(e) is certainly relevant to this appeal, we must point out that there are other legal considerations that might prevent the probate court from exercising its jurisdiction, considerations that are not specifically mentioned in R.C. § 2101.24(A)(1)(e). As R.C. §2101.24(A)(1) itself states, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over guardianships, "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law."

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control executors’ and administrators’ conduct and settle their accounts.

Holik v. Lafferty, Unpublished Decision (5-26-2006) · filed 2006-05-26(A)(1)(c)

Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c), the probate court has "exclusive" jurisdiction "to direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators." We agree with the trial court that all of Holik's claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court.

Section 2101.24 makes probate-court jurisdiction exclusive only unless another law provides otherwise, so R.C. Chapter 1923 can confer municipal-court jurisdiction over an eviction action.

Estate of Wos v. Wos, Unpublished Decision (8-18-2006) · filed 2006-08-18

R.C. 2104.24 expressly acknowledges the jurisdiction of probate court over real estate matters is conditional and limited. R.C. 2101.24 explicitly states, "Except as otherwise provided by law." R.C. 1923 provides otherwise.

Section 2101.24 gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians, control their conduct, and settle their accounts.

In re Guardianship of Bakhtiar · filed 2024-03-29

Additionally, R.C. 2101.24 states probate courts have exclusive jurisdiction, “[t]o appoint and remove guardians, conservators, and testamentary trustees, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts.” Thus, based upon the foregoing, the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, has subject matter jurisdiction to preside over this guardianship.

Section 2101.24(A) does not give the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over tort fraud claims seeking damages and rescission of deeds.

Prokos v. Hines · filed 2014-03-28(A)

And, a review of R.C. 2101.24(A) lists all matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court. Appellants have cited nothing to convince us that Appellees’ fraud claims in tort, requesting compensatory and punitive damages, along with rescission of the deeds to the fraudulently conveyed properties were somehow within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court and not properly within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Athens ... County Common Pleas Court, General Division.

Section 2101.24(C) gives Ohio probate courts equitable powers.

In Re Keller · filed 1989-12-18(C)

It is clear that Ohio probate courts have equitable powers. R.C. 2101.24(C); ... As a general equitable rule, it has been held that an allowance may be made out of the decedent’s estate for the services of attorneys for beneficiaries where those services are beneficial to the entire estate.

Section 2101.24 supports the probate court's power to control the expenditure and distribution of estate assets even when the will waives bond.

In Re Fouras, Unpublished Decision (1-28-2002) · filed 2002-01-28

The Court has inherent power to control expenditure and distribution of estate assets, notwithstanding whether the will provides for waiver of bond. (R.C. § 2101.24).

Section 2101.24(C) gives Ohio probate courts equitable powers, which may support an award of reasonable attorney fees from an estate when the attorney's services benefit the whole estate.

In Matter of Estate of Romero, Ca2006-06-015 (5-7-2007) · filed 2007-05-07(C)

Ohio probate courts have equitable powers. See R.C. 2101.24(C). "In rare cases, a probate court may authorize the payment of reasonable fees from the estate to an attorney employed by an heir or beneficiary where the attorney's services were rendered to the benefit of the whole estate." Brown at 542. "Compensation is based on `the equitable doctrine that where one has created, augmented, or preserved a fund he may be compensated therefrom.'" Id. Where the beneficiary is reasonably justified in bringing suit, attorney fees are justified as long as they benefit the estate. Id. Attorney fees have been denied where heirs have been involved in efforts antagonistic to the interests of the estate and where heirs were serving their own particular interests and not the estate as a whole. Id. The term "for the benefit of the estate" has been defined as "`whether or not all of the beneficiaries or distributees of the estate have become entitled to receive from the assets of the estate, when distributed, greater sums than those which they would have received had such attorney's services not been rendered.'" Id. at 543.

Section 2101.24(C) gives probate courts plenary legal and equitable power over matters properly before them unless the Revised Code limits it, while subsection (A)(1)(c) gives exclusive jurisdiction over appointing and removing guardians, controlling their conduct, and settling their accounts.

In Re Guardianship of Derakhshan · filed 1996-04-01(C); (A)(1)(c) (formerly (A)(1)(d))

“The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.” R.C. 2101.24(C). Under R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c), the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians and to direct and control their conduct and settle their accounts. ... After reviewing the statutes and cases, we conclude that the probate court acted within the limitations of its authority as superior guardian when it denied appellant’s request to distribute the funds in a lump sum. ... Although the domestic relations court retained jurisdiction over its order, the probate court retained exclusive jurisdiction to control the guardian, the wards, and the guardianship estate.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(m) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control fiduciaries and settle their accounts, including in proceedings under R.C. 2109.50.

Matter of Clay, Unpublished Decision (2-3-1999) · filed 1999-02-03(A)(1)(m)

R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(m) provides that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction * * * [t]o direct and control the conduct of fiduciaries and settle their accounts." ... We believe that if the general assembly had intended to create an exception to this general rule for proceedings under R.C. 2109.50, it certainly would have made some mention that it was doing so. ... Additionally, we observe that the text of R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(m) specifically grants jurisdiction to probate courts to control the conduct of fiduciaries and to settle fiduciary accounts, the very actions which the trial court took in this instance. Thus, we conclude that the probate court was not required to compel appellants' appearance in order to maintain jurisdiction under R.C. 2109.50.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians and to make guardianship-related inquests, so an adult guardianship is within the probate court's exclusive jurisdiction.

Matter of Guardianship of Constable, Unpublished Decision (6-12-2000) · filed 2000-06-12(A)(1)(e) and (A)(1)(g)

Where a matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court, no other court may exercise jurisdiction over the matter. Caudill v. Caudill (1986), 29 Ohio App.3d 51, 52. Although the domestic relations court has jurisdiction over child custody and support matters, R.C. 3105.01.1 and 3109.05, Shawn's guardianship is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court. R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e) and (g). Once Shawn reached the age of eighteen and Linda and James sought guardianship, the probate court was the only court with jurisdiction over Shawn.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(e) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over guardianship administration and account-settlement matters, and subsection (C) gives it plenary power over matters properly before it, including claims concerning unauthorized removal of guardianship assets.

Ohio Farmers Ins. v. Huntington Natl Bank, Unpublished Decision (9-28-2000) · filed 2000-09-28(A)(1)(e), (C)

Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e), the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction [t]o appoint and remove guardians, conservators, and testamentary trustees, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts. It also has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code. R.C. 2101.24(C); Wolfrum v. Wolfrum (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 237,208 N.E.2d 537, paragraph one of the syllabus. ... Reviewing the complaint in its entirety, Ohio Farmers, while standing in the guardian's shoes, alleges that Huntington Bank conveyed away to Lavin, without authorization, funds in the amount of $97,915.00 belonging to the Guardianship Estate of Eric Bonner. As a result, the action falls squarely within the ambit of R.C.2109.50 and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Probate Division.Estate of Popp, 94 Ohio App.3d at 646; Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. v.Bank One, Dayton (Aug. 21, 1998), Montgomery App. 16981, unreported.5 The fact that the guardianship has terminated does not foreclose that exclusive jurisdiction. We overrule the assignment of error.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(d) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control fiduciaries and thereby hear actions involving breaches of fiduciary duties.

Gilpin v. Bank One Corp., Unpublished Decision (6-14-2004) · filed 2004-06-14(A)(1)(d)

The jurisdiction of the probate division is set forth in R.C. 2101.24(A)(1), which identifies various types of cases over which it has subject-matter jurisdiction. This provision grants the probate court exclusive jurisdiction "[t]o appoint and remove guardians, conservators and their testamentary trustees, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts." R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(d). The power to "direct and control the conduct of fiduciaries," coupled with the probate court's plenary power at law and equity to fully dispose of any matter properly before it, gives jurisdiction to the probate court over actions involving a breach of fiduciary duties. See Rinehart v. BankOne, Columbus (Aug. 21, 1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 719, 727-728;Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. v. Bank One, Dayton (1998), Montgomery App. No. 16981; Goff v. Ameritrust Co. (May 5, 1994), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 65196, 66016.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(e) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over appointing and removing guardians, directing and controlling their conduct, and settling their accounts, including determining guardianship attorney fees as part of the final accounting.

In Re Guardianship of Hughes, Unpublished Decision (12-20-2007) · filed 2007-12-20(A)(1)(e)

R.C. 2101.24 (A)(1)(e) grants the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians, to direct and control their conduct, and to settle their accounts. ... The probate court retained jurisdiction, as part of settling the final accounting of the guardianship, to determine whether an award of attorney fees was merited and, if so, the amount.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(e) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians, control their conduct, and settle their accounts.

In Re Guardianship of Thomas, 06 Mo 7 (5-12-2008) · filed 2008-05-12(A)(1)(e)

The relevant jurisdictional statute in this case is R.C. 2101.24(A)(1), which states, in pertinent part: ... "(e) To appoint and remove guardians, conservators, and testamentary trustees, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts;"

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(e) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians.

In re I.B. · filed 2015-10-08(A)(1)(e)

The probate court, however, awarded the guardianship of I.B. to appellee pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e), which provides that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians.

Section 2101.24(A)(1) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians, control their conduct, settle their accounts, and approve a final guardianship accounting after the ward's death.

In re Guardianship of Lindsey · filed 2015-10-13(A)(1)

Except as otherwise provided by law, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction: * * * To appoint and remove guardians, conservators, and testamentary trustees, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts[.] Such plenary power extends a probate court's jurisdiction to approve final accountings after the death of a ward.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over guardianships and fiduciaries and plenary authority to dispose of matters properly before it, including claims concerning a ward under guardianship.

Sosnoswsky v. Koscianski · filed 2018-04-12(A)(1)(e), (A)(1)(m), (C)

(A)(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction: ... (e) To appoint and remove guardians, conservators, and testamentary trustees, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts; ... (m) To direct and control the conduct of fiduciaries and settle their accounts; ... (C) The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code. ... In her complaint, Sosnoswsky alleged that Lieber fraudulently concealed and converted funds for her own use that had been meant for Sosnoswsky. Because Lieber is under the guardianship of Koscianski, pursuant to R.C. 2101.24 and 2111.13, the probate court has jurisdiction over Sosnoswsky's claims.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to control fiduciaries, settle executor and administrator accounts, order estate distributions, and plenary power to dispose of matters properly before it unless the Revised Code expressly limits that power.

In re Estate of Abraitis · filed 2020-08-27(A)(1)(c), (A)(1)(m), (C)

R.C. 2101.24 provides, in relevant part: ... (c) To direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators and order the distribution of estates; ... (m) To direct and control the conduct of fiduciaries and settle their accounts; ... (C) The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code. ... Accordingly, the probate court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction to address any of the matters at issue in this appeal.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators, while subsection (A)(1)(k) gives it exclusive jurisdiction to construe wills.

Widok v. Estate of Wolf · filed 2020-11-05(A)(1)(c); (A)(1)(k)

Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c) and 2101.24(A)(1)(m), the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators. ... Relevant to the intention of Mary in this case, however, R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(k) states that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to construe wills. ... Under these circumstances, we find the court did not err in dismissing Widok’s claim for reformation of Mary’s will.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(e) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over appointing and removing guardians, while subsection (C) gives them plenary legal and equitable power to dispose fully of matters properly before them, including investigating guardians.

Progressive Macedonia, L.L.C. v. Shepherd · filed 2021-03-15(A)(1)(e), (C)

As Spangler makes clear, a probate court has “comprehensive” statutory authority regarding guardianships under R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e) and plenary authority to investigate guardians under R.C. 2101.24(C). Id. at ¶ 46, ¶ 54. Thus, in this case, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider the allegations that Macedonia raised in its motion.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(e) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction to establish and administer guardianships.

In re Guardianship of E.M. · filed 2022-03-18(A)(1)(e)

It is clear that probate courts have exclusive jurisdiction to establish and administer guardianships. R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e).

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over matters touching a guardianship, including visitation, and its plenary power reaches related claims for damages against third parties even before a guardian is appointed.

Carney v. Olmsted Operator, L.L.C. · filed 2022-05-12(A)(1)(e), (A)(1)(g), and (C)

R.C. 2101.24 sets forth the jurisdiction of the probate court. Relevant to this case, R.C. 2101.24(A) provides: ... (e) To appoint and remove guardians * * * and settle their accounts; ... (g) To make inquests respecting persons who are so mentally impaired * * * that they are unable to manage their property and affairs effectively, subject to guardianship; ... (r) To act for and issue orders regarding wards pursuant to section 2111.50 of the Revised Code[.] Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(C), “[t]he probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.”

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(t) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over informed-consent actions concerning medication of persons hospitalized under R.C. 5122.141 or 5122.15.

Cleveland v. Ohio Department of Mental Health · filed 1992-12-31(A)(1)(t)

In the present case, the statute has been amended to vest the probate court with exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving informed consent hearings for the medication of persons such as those in plaintiffs’ class. This statutory change represents a significant change in the law such that it is no longer equitable that the injunction remain in force. Accordingly, on that basis alone, it was error for the trial court to deny the motion of ODMH to dissolve the injunction inasmuch as the court now lacked jurisdiction by way of the amendment to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1).

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives the probate division concurrent jurisdiction with the common pleas court's general division over actions involving a power of attorney.

Guardianship of Vasko v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (12-18-2003) · filed 2003-12-18(B)(1)(b)

And at the risk of putting too fine a point on our analysis, the probate division of the court of common pleas has concurrent jurisdiction with the general division of the court of common pleas over any action involving "a power of attorney." See R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b).

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives the probate court concurrent jurisdiction with the common pleas court over actions involving a power of attorney, including a durable power of attorney.

Burwell v. Rains, Unpublished Decision (4-25-2005) · filed 2005-04-25(B)(1)(b)

As such, R.C. 2101.24 was contemporaneously made applicable. Thus, the probate court had concurrent jurisdiction, pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b), to entertain the action for concealed or embezzled assets under R.C. 2109.50 pertaining to power of attorney issues.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(l) places declaratory actions by a guardian to invalidate pre-guardianship transfers within the probate court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and subsection (C) gives that court plenary power to dispose of properly presented claims, including awarding money damages.

Barber v. Williamson · filed 2012-10-16(A)(1)(l), (C)

It follows then that when a guardian brings suit on behalf of the ward seeking a declaratory judgment invalidating pre-guardianship transfers involving property that would revert to the ward’s estate if the court deems the transfers invalid, such a claim is within the probate court’s exclusive jurisdiction because it “touches upon the guardianship.” R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(l); In re Guardianship of Jawisiak. See, generally, Grimes. ... R.C. 2101.24(C) clearly gives the probate court plenary power at law and equity to dispose of any claim properly before it, which includes issuing money damages. Mullins has cited no section of the Revised Code that specifically denies or limits this power, nor have we found any.

Section 2101.24 does not allow a probate court's general declaratory-judgment or plenary powers to supplant the statutory domestic-relations procedure for a ward's annulment action.

Nixon v. Day · filed 2019-08-16(A)(1)(l), (C)

Does a probate court have jurisdiction to grant an annulment within a guardianship action, under the probate court’s statutory power to grant declaratory judgments per R.C. 2101.24(A)(1) and/or its plenary powers under R.C. 2101.24(C)? ... Construing the existing statutes and case law, we hold that any action seeking annulment for a guardian’s ward must be brought as a statutory domestic relations complaint under R.C. Chapter 3105 in the pertinent county’s common pleas domestic relations division, or if none, the general division, and that a probate court’s invocation of its general declaratory judgment powers does not supplant the General Assembly’s intent to have such matters heard as domestic relations cases.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court jurisdiction to hear declaratory-judgment actions involving estate administration or an inter vivos trust and plenary power to fully resolve matters properly before it.

Wozniak v. Wozniak · filed 1993-09-22(A)(l)(k), (B)(1)(b), (C)

Under R.C. 2101.24(A)(l)(k), the probate court has jurisdiction to render declaratory judgments in actions involving the administration of an estate. ... In addition, R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b) provides: ... “(b) Any action that involves an inter vivos trust * * *.” ... Finally, R.C. 2101.24(C) provides that: ... “The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by statute.” ... Taken together, these statutes permit a plaintiff personally interested in an estate to bring a declaratory judgment action in the probate court to determine the title to estate assets, ... and to adjudicate questions directly affecting the administration of an estate.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(k) gives probate courts jurisdiction over declaratory-judgment actions concerning questions related to estate administration.

State ex rel. Lipinski v. Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · filed 1995-11-01(A)(1)(k)

Since the probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction, probate proceedings are restricted to those actions permitted by statute and by the Constitution. Corron v. Corron (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 75, 531 N.E.2d 708, paragraph one of the syllabus. R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(k), 2721.03, and 2721.05(C) vest probate courts with jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions upon questions relating to the administration of an estate.

Section 2101.24 permits probate-court jurisdiction over declaratory judgments only within the court’s statutory subject-matter jurisdiction; Chapter 2721 does not expand that jurisdiction.

Zimmerman v. Montgomery Co. Public Health Dept. · filed 2016-04-01(A)(1)(l), (A)(2)

“The probate court has jurisdiction to render declaratory judgments pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2721 and R.C. 2101.24.” ... As the probate court determined, Zimmerman’s complaint did not allege a cause of action that the probate court had authority to decide. In other words, the complaint for declaratory relief did not request the registration of an unrecorded birth or the correction of a birth record and was subject to dismissal by the probate court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. R.C. Chapter 2721 does not expand the probate court’s jurisdiction beyond that conferred by R.C. 3705.15.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(l) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to render declaratory judgments determining questions arising in the administration of an estate.

Hodge v. Callinan · filed 2018-01-22(A)(1)(l)

Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(l), the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction "[t]o render declaratory judgments, including, but not limited to, those rendered pursuant to [R.C.] 2107.084." ... Collectively, the statutes provide the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions to determine any question arising out of the administration of an estate. ... Therefore, the estate remains open and the questions posed by appellees in their declaratory judgment action arose in the administration of the pending estate. In turn, the probate court had statutory authority to grant or deny declaratory relief.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to render declaratory judgments, concurrent jurisdiction and common-pleas powers over actions involving inter vivos trusts, and plenary authority to dispose of matters properly before it.

Galbreath v. Del Valle · filed 1993-11-24(A)(1)(k), (B)(1)(b), (C)

Preliminarily, this court agrees with the probate court’s finding that that court had jurisdiction to hear the matter placed before it by Daniel Galbreath, as trustee of the family trust. The probate court was vested with jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 2101.24, which provides, as follows: ... “(B)(1) The probate court has concurrent jurisdiction with, and the same powers at law and in equity as, the general division of the court of common pleas to issue writs and orders, and to hear and determine actions as follows: ... “(b) Any action that involves an inter vivos trust; * * * ... “(C) The probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.” In order for the probate court to exercise its subject-matter jurisdiction in a proceeding involving a trust and multistate beneficiaries, the court must have jurisdiction over the trust, the trust property or the trust parties. ... Unquestionably, the probate court had jurisdiction over the family trust, the trust property and the trustee.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court concurrent jurisdiction over actions involving inter vivos trusts and plenary authority to fully resolve properly before it, including fiduciary-duty claims seeking monetary damages, unless another statute limits that power.

Bank One Trust Co., N.A. v. Nye · filed 1998-02-13(B)(1), (C), (A)(1)(c), and (1)

The jurisdiction of the probate court is addressed in R.C. 2101.24, in which this court is given exclusive jurisdiction of many issues. The probate court is also granted concurrent jurisdiction with the general division of the court of common pleas, for several other matters in R.C. 2101.24(B)(1). One of the areas of concurrent jurisdiction is “[a]ny action that involves an inter vivos trust.” Pursuant to this statute, the plaintiff had the discretion to bring this action in either the court of common pleas, general division or probate division. The Revised Code continues to state in R.C. 2101.24(C) that “the probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.”

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court jurisdiction to determine whether fraudulently induced inter vivos transfers should be invalidated and the wrongfully withheld assets returned to the estate, even though the court lacks jurisdiction over a tort fraud claim seeking monetary damages.

Johnson v. Johnson, Unpublished Decision (6-25-1999) · filed 1999-06-25(B)(1)(b), (C)

In this case, however, the claim was not for monetary damages but rather for the return of substantial assets to the estate, and the Probate Court does have jurisdiction to recover assets wrongfully withheld from an estate even if they are withheld as a result of fraud. ... The question is not whether Ernest Johnson is liable in fraud for damages but whether the documents and conveyances were fraudulently induced so as to render them invalid and to cause the property to remain as estate assets. We find the Vinton County Probate Court had jurisdiction to decide that question.

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives probate courts concurrent jurisdiction with courts of common pleas over actions involving inter vivos trusts, but res judicata may preclude the probate court from addressing an already-decided trust-validity issue.

In re Guardianship of Lombardo · filed 1999-09-29(B)(1)(b)

The language of R.C. 2101.24 unambiguously provides the probate court with concurrent jurisdiction with the court of common pleas to address inter vivos trusts. But we find that the probate court in this case would have been precluded from addressing the voting trust under R.C. 2101.24 because the validity of the voting trust was res judicata.

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives the probate court concurrent jurisdiction over actions involving an inter vivos trust or a power of attorney, and the court may fully dispose of matters properly before it unless the Revised Code limits that power.

Fox v. Stockmaster, Unpublished Decision (6-5-2002) · filed 2002-06-05(B)(1)(b)

However, R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b) provides that the probate court has concurrent jurisdiction over "any action that involves an inter vivos trust * * * [or a] power of attorney." Furthermore, R.C. 2101.24 provides that the probate court holds plenary power at law in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court unless the power is specifically limited or denied by a provision of the Revised Code. As the assets were withdrawn with a Power of Attorney and partly withdrawn from intervivos trust funds, we find that the probate court had jurisdiction to entertain an action for concealed or embezzled assets under 2109.50.

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives the probate court concurrent jurisdiction over any action involving an inter vivos trust, while subsection (C) gives it plenary power to fully dispose of matters properly before it unless the Revised Code expressly limits that power.

State Ex Rel. Sladoje v. Belskis · filed 2002-09-03(B)(1)(b) and (C)

The court further held that the probate court’s plenary grant of authority in R.C. 2101.24(C) did not allow the prejudgment attachment order because the proceeding involved assets that were not part of the decedent’s estate and were not properly before the court. Here, R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b) does grant the probate court authority over an inter vivos trust.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court jurisdiction over actions involving inter vivos trusts, even when the trustee was not appointed under a will.

Martin v. Wayne Cty. Natl. Bank, Unpublished Decision (8-11-2004) · filed 2004-08-11(B)(1)(b)

According to R.C. 2101.24, a probate court has jurisdiction to alter the powers of a testamentary trustee. A "testamentary trustee" is "[a] trustee appointed by or acting under a will[.]" Black's Law Dictionary, 1519 (7th ed. 1999). Appellee is not a "testamentary trustee" because it was appointed trustee via an inter vivos trust agreement. Thus, Appellee is an "inter vivos trustee," which is a trustee appointed during the lifetime of the settlor.1 Despite the fact that Appellee is an "inter vivos trustee," the probate court had jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b). See State exrel. Sladjoe v. Belskis (2002), 149 Ohio App.3d 190, 194.

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives a probate court concurrent jurisdiction with the common pleas court's general division over actions involving an inter vivos trust, including claims against trust property, and subsection (C) gives it plenary power to fully dispose of matters properly before it unless the Revised Code limits that power.

Revocable Living Trust of Mandel v. Lake Erie Util. Co. · filed 2012-12-06(B)(1)(b), (C)

Similarly, R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b) provides that “[t]he probate court has concurrent jurisdiction with, and the same powers at law and in equity as, the general division of the court of common pleas to issue writs and orders, and to hear and determine actions * * * that involves an inter vivos trust * * *.” Further, “[t]he probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by a section of the Revised Code.” R.C. 2101.24(C). ... Where a contract has no bearing on trust property or the administration of a trust, then a probate court is without jurisdiction to entertain a declaratory judgment action seeking the court’s interpretation. ... But here, the contract in question directly affects trust property and the validity of the liens levied against it. ... Once it is determined that the probate court has jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action, it may exercise jurisdiction over the remainder of the trustee’s claims because the probate court also has plenary power to fully dispose of any matter properly before the court unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by statute.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(e) gives probate courts authority to appoint and remove guardians, conservators, and testamentary trustees, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts.

Kormanik v. Cooper · filed 2011-11-01(A)(1)(e)

R.C. 2101.24, which sets forth the general jurisdictional parameters of probate courts, grants probate courts the power “[t]o appoint and remove guardians, conservators, and testamentary trustees, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts.”