Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2101.24

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives the probate court concurrent jurisdiction over actions involving inter vivos trusts, and subsection (C) gives it plenary power to dispose of matters properly before it.

In re McCauley Irrevocable Trust · filed 2014-08-25(B)(1)(b), (C)

We find the Probate Court retained jurisdiction over the administration of the Irrevocable Trust pursuant to the duties and powers of the Probate Court as stated in R.C. 2101.24 and 5802.01. ... (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; a trust created pursuant to section 5815.28 of the Revised Code; ... (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(B)(1)(b) gives the probate court concurrent jurisdiction with the common pleas court's general division to hear actions involving an inter vivos trust.

Ulinski v. Byers · filed 2015-01-28(B)(1)(b)

R.C. 2101.24 outlines the jurisdiction of the probate court and 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 * * * [a]ny action that involves an inter vivos trust * * *.” R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b).

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives probate courts jurisdiction to hear and determine actions involving inter vivos trusts, while subsection (C) grants plenary authority to dispose fully of matters properly before them, including collateral matters.

In re Cletus P. McCauley & Mary A. McCauley Irrevocable Trust · filed 2014-08-11(B)(1)(b), (C)

R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b) authorizes the probate court to “hear and determine * * * any action that involves an inter vivos trust.” ... R.C. 2101.24(C) confers broad authority to the probate court to address collateral matters, including “plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court.” ... This plenary power authorizes the probate court to exercise complete jurisdiction over the subject matter to the fullest extent necessary.

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives the probate court concurrent jurisdiction with the general division of the court of common pleas over actions involving an inter vivos trust.

White v. White · filed 2021-09-30(B)(1)(b)

Rather than removing jurisdiction from the common pleas court, R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b) provides that the probate court has concurrent jurisdiction with the general division of the court of common pleas “to hear and determine * * * [a]ny action that involves an inter vivos trust[.]”

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(h) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to qualify and appoint trustees, control their conduct, and settle their accounts; it also gives the court concurrent jurisdiction over inter vivos trusts and plenary power over matters properly before it.

In re Roudebush Trust · filed 2021-12-27(A)(1)(h), (B)(1)(b), (C)

Even though the beneficiaries unanimously consented to Martin filling the vacancy and becoming Third Successor Trustee, the court had subject matter jurisdiction under R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(h) to ensure that appellant was qualified as the trustee and to review with him his duties as Third Successor Trustee.

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives probate courts and the general divisions of common pleas courts concurrent jurisdiction over actions involving inter vivos trusts.

In re Baughman Irrevocable Trust · filed 2025-05-27(B)(1)(b)

While R.C. 2101.24(A)(1) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters involving testamentary trusts, Bradley points out that the BIT is an inter vivos trust. R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b) expressly grants probate courts and the general divisions of common pleas courts concurrent jurisdiction “to hear and determine any action that involves an inter vivos trust.”

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

Zahn v. Nelson · filed 2007-01-24(B)(1)(b), (C)

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 issue writs and orders, and to hear and determine actions as follows: * * * (b) Any action that involves an inter vivos trust * * Furthermore, 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.” ... Here, the portion of the judgment that Gale, Albert, and Brad appeal clearly involves the construction of an inter vivos trust. Because the statute broadly provides that the court possesses concurrent jurisdiction over “any action” involving an inter vivos trust, we find their argument, i.e. that judicial construction has somehow limited the court’s jurisdiction over inter vivos trusts to specific circumstances, unconvincing. ... Therefore, we conclude that the trial court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to consider Donna’s complaint for declaratory judgment as it relates to the construction of the trust.

Section 2101.24(B)(1) gives the probate court and the general division concurrent jurisdiction to hear actions and issue orders concerning inter vivos trusts.

McCoy v. Witzleb, Unpublished Decision (12-16-2005) · filed 2005-12-16(B)(1)

Issues concerning the interpretation of the provisions of the trust, such as whether an individual is a beneficiary under paragraph 4.1, clearly fall within the province of the court. ... see also R.C. 2101.24(B)(1) (granting concurrent jurisdiction to the probate court and the general division of the court of common pleas to hear an action and issue order concerning an inter vivos trust); ... Accordingly, the trial court acted properly when it exercised jurisdiction over this matter and declined to defer to Margaret's determinations, as trustee, regarding the merits of Lisa Marie's claims.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over guardians and their accounts, and plenary power to fully dispose of properly presented matters, including monetary-damages claims against a former guardian.

In Re Guardianship of McPheter · filed 1994-08-05(A)(1)(d), (C)

Upon consideration of the foregoing, this court finds that (1) the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction and plenary power at law and in equity to fully dispose of all claims against the former guardian pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(d) and 2101.24(C), (2) an action seeking monetary damages is within the probate court’s plenary power at law and clearly affects the court’s settlement of the guardian’s accounts and (3) the trial court did not err in determining that it had subject matter jurisdiction to grant judgment against appellant.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over enumerated guardian matters, including controlling a guardian's conduct and settling the guardian's accounts, but does not give it jurisdiction over a money-damages claim that does not directly affect the guardian-ward relationship.

Ohio Department of Mental Health v. Baldauf · filed 1995-11-20(D)

The jurisdiction of probate courts is set forth in R.C. 2101.24, which provides: ... “(D) To appoint and remove guardians and testamentary trustees, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts.” ... Pursuant to the foregoing statutory provisions, the probate division has exclusive jurisdiction as to all matters specifically set forth in R.C. 2101.24. ... It has also been held that probate courts have no jurisdiction under R.C. 2101.24 to award money damages in certain actions. ... As this claim was for money damages, which do not directly affect the guardian and ward relationship, the general division of the common pleas court did not err when it asserted jurisdiction.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(e) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over appointing and removing guardians, directing and controlling them, and settling their accounts.

In Re Skrobut, Unpublished Decision (9-10-1999) · filed 1999-09-10(A)(1)(e)

Moreover, pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e), the probate court has the exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove, direct and control, and settle the accounts of guardians.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(e) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians and supervise their conduct, but that jurisdiction does not permit interference with custody already subject to a divorce court’s continuing jurisdiction.

Matter of Dick, Unpublished Decision (11-15-1999) · filed 1999-11-15(A)(1)(e)

R.C. 2101.24(A)(1) states the following: "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." The probate court has original jurisdiction over letters of guardianship. However, where a court of common pleas, upon rendering a decree of divorce, has continuing jurisdiction over the custody, care, and control of minor children, a probate court cannot legally interfere with custody by issuing letters of guardianship.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(e) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians, including matters touching guardianship.

Vild v. Vild, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2000) · filed 2000-03-23(A)(1)(e)

Under R.C.2101.24(A)(1)(e), probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians. The jurisdiction of the probate court extends to all matters which touch the guardianship. In reGuardianship of Jadwisiak (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 176. The trial court correctly determined that it was without jurisdiction to appoint a guardian to protect the property interests of the Vilds' minor children.

Section 2101.24(A)(2) gives a probate court exclusive jurisdiction only when the Revised Code expressly grants it jurisdiction over the subject and grants no other court or agency that jurisdiction, while subsection (C)'s plenary authority does not apply to matters not properly before the court.

State ex rel. Goldberg v. Mahoning Cty. 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 gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over appointing and supervising guardians and acting for wards, including matters touching a minor's guardianship and personal-injury claim, but it does not extend to the parents' separate derivative claims or an insurer's subrogated claim.

United Healthcare of Ohio v. Percival, Unpublished Decision (6-18-2002) · filed 2002-06-18(A)(1)(e)(s)

The provisions of R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e)(s) vest probate courts with the exclusive jurisdiction to appoint guardians, to direct and control their conduct, to settle their accounts and to act for and issue orders regarding wards. ... When a minor child has suffered a personal injury, a guardian may settle the child's claim with the advice, approval and consent of the probate court. R.C. 2111.18. These statutes make it clear that probate court jurisdiction extends to all matters which touch the guardianship and the personal injury claims of minors. ... While the Ross County Probate Court had exclusive jurisdiction over Wyatt's personal injury claim, we are aware of no authority that vests that court with exclusive, indeed any, jurisdiction over his parents' separate claims or the subrogated claim of the insurance company.

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

Hammons v. Chisholm, Unpublished Decision (3-06-2003) · filed 2003-03-06(A)(1)(e)

Further, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to "appoint and remove guardians[.]" R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e).

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(d) gives a probate court jurisdiction to settle guardianship accounts, supporting its continuing authority to wind up guardianship matters after the ward's death.

State Ex Rel. Hards v. Klammer, Unpublished Decision (5-31-2005) · filed 2005-05-31(A)(1)(d)

Second, the Schueneman holding is still consistent with the provisions in the Revised Code governing guardianships. For example, R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(d) states that a probate court has the jurisdiction to settle the accounts of guardianships.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control executors' and administrators' conduct in administering a decedent's estate.

In Re Estate of Sarantino, Unpublished Decision (7-14-2006) · filed 2006-07-14(A)(1)(c)

R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c) grants the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control the conduct of executors and administrators in the administration of a decedent's estate.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court plenary authority over matters properly before it and jurisdiction to resolve whether an attorney-in-fact properly handled property connected to an estate.

In Re Estate of Leach, Unpublished Decision (7-21-2006) · filed 2006-07-21

"Additionally, under the plenary power conferred upon the probate court in the administration of estates, the court has authority to dispose of any matter properly before the court, unless otherwise provided by statute. R.C. 2101.24(C). ... In making this determination, the court reviewed whether Donald's conduct as an attorney-in-fact was proper. Pursuant to R.C.2101.24(B)(1)(b), the probate court had the power to resolve whether Donald, as attorney-in-fact, had properly cashed the bonds and placed the proceeds in a joint account in his and Mary's names. Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, the probate court acted within its statutory authority."

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(e) gives the probate court jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians, supervise their conduct, and settle their accounts, including completing a proper accounting after the ward dies.

State ex rel. Estate of Hards v. Klammer · filed 2006-08-02(A)(1)(e)

Judge Klammer has basic statutory jurisdiction to “appoint and remove guardians, * * * direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts.” R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e). ... Nevertheless, it is equally true, as the court of appeals properly observed, that although “there is precedent under Ohio law for the general proposition that the legal effect of a guardianship ends upon the death of the ward,” a guardian has the power after the ward’s death to make a proper accounting and settlement of any acts taken in regard to the ward’s assets. ... Thus, the “jurisdiction of a ‘guardianship’ court does not completely terminate immediately after the ward’s death.”

In a guardianship matter, the probate court's jurisdiction extends to the entire personal-injury settlement, including attorney fees to be drawn from it.

In re Guardianship of Jadwisiak · filed 1992-07-15(C)

We hold that a probate court, in order to maintain control over any personal injury settlement entered into on behalf of a ward under its protection, has subject matter jurisdiction over the entire amount of settlement funds, which includes attorney fees to be drawn therefrom.

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

In Re Guardianship of Norwood Unpublished Decision (8-31-2006) · filed 2006-08-31(A)(1)(e)

Ohio law provides that the probate court is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court plenary authority to dispose of matters properly before it and jurisdiction over actions involving misuse of a power of attorney.

Levy v. Thompson, Unpublished Decision (10-6-2006) · filed 2006-10-06(B)(1)(b), (C)

We find no merit to Thompson's contention that the probate court did not have jurisdiction to void the per stirpes designation on the January annuity because she was not responsible for making said designation. As Jan correctly notes, the probate court has plenary power at law and in equity to fully dispose of any matter that is properly before it pursuant to R.C. § 2101.24(C). The probate court also has jurisdiction to hear and determine actions involving the misuse of a power of attorney pursuant to R.C. § 2101.24(B)(1)(b). Virginia's alleged misuse of the power of attorney granted to her by Thelma provided the probate court with jurisdiction to determine whether the per stirpes designation on the January annuity should be voided.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction to control executors and administer a decedent's estate.

Washington v. Robinson, 88897 (10-25-2007) · filed 2007-10-25(A)(1)(c)

R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c) grants exclusive jurisdiction to probate courts to control the conduct of executors and to administer a decedent's estate.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving guardians and plenary authority to award monetary damages and other relief needed to fully resolve matters within that jurisdiction.

Keith v. Bringardner, 07ap-666 (3-6-2008) · filed 2008-03-06(A)(1)(e), (C)

We also hold that probate courts can award monetary damages for claims that are within the court's exclusive jurisdiction. R.C.2101.24(C) grants the probate court the 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 broad statutory grant of authority to fully resolve matters properly before it includes the power to award monetary damages. See Goff v. Ameritrust Co. (May 5, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 65196 (cited favorably in Lewis for holding that R.C. 2101.24(C) authorizes any relief that is required to fully adjudicate a claim within probate court's jurisdiction).

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

In re Guardianship of Spangler · filed 2010-06-09(C)

The general grant of jurisdiction to probate courts regarding guardians is comprehensive. R.C. 2101.24 states: ... “(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.” ... Nonetheless, the plenary power of the probate court as the superior guardian allows it to investigate whether a guardian should be removed upon receipt of sufficient information that the guardian is not acting in the ward’s best interest.

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

In re Conservatorship of Adamosky · filed 2011-06-21(A)(1)(e)

“(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.” R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e). ... The issue before this court is whether a probate court has jurisdiction to determine attorney fees where the conservatorship petition limits the court’s power to “those items reserved to the Court under O.R.C. §2111.021” over “all property.” We find that the limiting language in the petition over “all property” does not dispose of the probate court’s authority to determine reasonable attorney fees. The attorney fees for the conservatorship were paid from an account that was part of the conservatorship. Thus in settling the accounts, which the probate court clearly had authority to do, the court was acting within its power when it reviewed the attorney fees and determined whether those fees were reasonable. ... Thus, the petition over “all property” does not limit the court’s authority to determine reasonable attorney fees which come from an account that is part of the conservatorship.

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives the probate court jurisdiction over actions involving misuse of a power of attorney, including determining the validity of related annuity transactions; subsection (C) gives it plenary power to fully dispose of matters properly before it, including distributing annuity death benefits.

Schiavoni v. Roy · filed 2012-09-28(B)(1)(b), (C)

The probate court also “has jurisdiction to hear and determine actions involving the misuse of a power of attorney.” Estate v. Niemi v. Niemi, 11th Dist. No. 2008-T-0082, 2009-Ohio-2090, ¶ 36 (citing R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b)); see also Section 2101.24(A)(1)(m) (providing that “the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction . . . [t]o direct and control the conduct of fiduciaries . . . .”). ... Because Ms. Roy obtained the Standard Life annuity through Mr. Roy’s exercise of the power of attorney, the probate court had jurisdiction to determine whether obtaining the annuity was a proper exercise of his authority. R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b). ... Similarly, because Mr. Roy completed most of the Hartford annuity change-of-beneficiary form and he was with Ms. Roy when she signed it, the probate court had jurisdiction to determine whether he exercised undue influence over her regarding who she named as her beneficiary. See R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b); ... Accordingly, we conclude that the probate court had jurisdiction to determine whether the purchase of the Standard Life annuity and the change of beneficiary of the Hartford annuity were valid. ... Having determined that the annuity-beneficiary designations were not valid, the probate court had authority to decide how the annuities’ death benefits should be distributed. 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 a section of the Revised Code.”). It, therefore, had authority to award Ms. Schiavoni half of the Hartford annuity and to order Mr. Roy to pay the amount he had received from the Standard Life annuity to Ms. Roy’s estate.

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

In re Kasper · filed 2014-03-27(A)(1)(e)

R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e) addresses the probate court's jurisdiction over a testamentary trustee and provides: "Except as otherwise provided by law, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction: * * * (e) To appoint and remove * * * testamentary trustees, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control appellee's actions involving the life insurance proceeds.

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

Elmer v. Moore · filed 2014-08-27(A)(1)(e)

R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e) provides, in part, that “the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction * * * to appoint and remove guardians[,] * * * direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts.”

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(e) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove testamentary trustees, control their conduct, and settle their accounts, except as otherwise provided by law.

In re Estate of Davis · filed 2025-01-21(A)(1)(e)

It follows that trusts cannot be self-executing, because they require the acceptance of a trustee. Here the named trustee, Merridith Davis, never accepted his role and never sought appointment by the probate court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e) (“Except as otherwise provided by law, 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 * * *.”).

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives the probate court subject-matter jurisdiction over matters directly concerning estates in probate, including issues involving payment of counsel.

Golub v. Werren · filed 2025-08-21(A)(1)(c)

As the Fifth District determined, see 2024-Ohio-4559, at ¶ 18, the probate court clearly has statutory subject-matter jurisdiction over matters directly concerning estates in probate, R.C. 2101.24. Such matters include issues involving the payment of counsel. See R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c).

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(dd) places orders of disinterment within the exclusive jurisdiction of Ohio probate courts.

Marszal v. Catholic Cemeteries Assn. of the Diocese of Cleveland · filed 2025-07-07(A)(1)(dd)

Lastly, although not argued by the parties, orders of disinterment are under the exclusive purview of the probate court’s jurisdiction, R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(dd).

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) lets probate courts hear and determine any action involving an inter vivos trust, while subsection (C) gives them broad plenary authority over matters properly before them.

Marcinkevicius v. Galloway · filed 2026-04-09(B)(1)(b), (C)

Under R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b), probate courts may hear and determine “any action that involves an inter vivos trust.” And, R.C. 2101.24(C) “confers broad authority to the probate court to address collateral matters, including ‘plenary power at law and in equity to dispose fully of any matter that is properly before the court.’” Franklin v. Franklin, 2010-Ohio-4251, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.).

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to control a ward’s personal-injury settlement and determine the related attorney-fee award.

Waterman v. Elk Elk Co., L.P.A. · filed 1994-09-14(A)(1)(d), (A)(1)(r)

The jurisdiction of the probate court derives from R.C. 2101.24. ... In this case, Waterman seeks to obtain part of the attorney fees awarded in Steven Fitzpatrick’s settlement. Because Steven is a ward under the probate court’s protection, the probate court is the proper forum to determine the fee award. Therefore, Waterman did not divest the probate court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter when he voluntarily dismissed his claim under Civ.R. 41(A)(1).

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives the probate court jurisdiction to hear and determine actions involving the misuse of a power of attorney.

Estate of Niemi v. Niemi, 2008-T-0082 (5-1-2009) · filed 2009-05-01(B)(1)(b)

Further, the probate court has jurisdiction to hear and determine actions involving the misuse of a power of attorney, pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b).

Section 2101.24(A)(2)(a) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction when another statute expressly confers jurisdiction on them and no statute confers it on another court or agency, while subsection (C) gives the probate court plenary power to order state funding integral to a commitment determination.

Ohio Department of Mental Health v. Clermont County Alcohol, Drug Addiction & Mental Health Services Board · filed 1994-10-05(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 (ie., the determination of the least restrictive environment for commitment of a mentally ill individual).

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to control executors and administrators, settle their accounts, and order estate distributions; the court applied that jurisdiction to enforcement of the antenuptial agreement after the divorce action abated.

Diemer v. Diemer · filed 1994-12-08(A)(1)(c)

R.C. 2101.24 states in relevant part as follows: ... “(A)(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction: ... “(c) To direct and control the conduct and ... settle the accounts of executors ... and administrators ... and order the distribution of estates.” ... (Emphasis added.) ... In addition, pursuant to R.C. 2101.24, enforcement of the Diemers’ antenuptial agreement in the case ... sub judice ... fell within the jurisdiction of the Probate Division.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over actions concerning the conduct of executors and guardians and plenary power to dispose fully of those matters.

Johnson v. Allen · filed 1995-02-13(A)(1)(c), (d), (1) and (C)

Likewise, in the present case, we conclude that the common pleas court did not err in finding that the within action for conversion of estate assets brought against the executor of Vire Wilson’s estate and breach of fiduciary duties brought against the guardian of Charlotte Wilson’s person was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c), (d), (1) and (C).

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control executors' and administrators' conduct, settle their accounts, and order estate distributions, including disputes over supplemental estate-administration fees.

Matter of Kordiac, Unpublished Decision (10-20-1999) · filed 1999-10-20(A)(1)(c)

Kordiac does not dispute that the probate court had subject matter jurisdiction over issues directly relating to the administration of the estate. R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c) grants the probate court exclusive jurisdiction "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law * * * [t]o direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators and order the distribution of estates[.]" Characterizing the trial court's order as an "award" of "damages," Kordiac asserts that this matter was not directly related to the administration of the estate and that, therefore, it was beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of the probate court. See Zuendelv. Zuendel (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 733, syllabus.

Section 2101.24(A)(1) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over construing wills and determining will validity, but not over a personal-property possession claim based on title rather than an estate.

Hugo v. Mulica, Unpublished Decision (9-19-2002) · filed 2002-09-19(A)(1)(k), (A)(1)(p)

The jurisdiction of the probate court is set forth in R.C. 2101.24, which provides: ... "(k) To construe wills; ... "(p) To hear and determine actions to contest the validity of wills; ... " In the instant case, the appellant did not request that the trial court construe a will or determine the validity of a will, which are the exclusive domain of the probate court. Rather, the appellant sought the immediate possession of his personal property for which he claimed to have legal ownership pursuant to a certificate of title, not through an estate.

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 Lauder · filed 2002-11-12(A)(1)(e)

Under R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e), the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians, to 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 Guardianship of Muehrcke, Unpublished Decision (1-16-2003) · filed 2003-01-16(A)(1)(e)

R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e) grants the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(e) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over appointing and removing guardians and conservators, controlling their conduct, and settling their accounts.

In Re Conservatorship of Ahmed, Unpublished Decision (6-16-2003) · filed 2003-06-16(A)(1)(e)

We agree that a probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians and conservators, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts. R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e); In reClendenning (1945), 145 Ohio St. 82, 89 (stating that a common pleas court cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus upon finding that a ward is no longer incompetent because the probate court is the only court that can restore control of property subject to a guardianship to the ward.).

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) and (m) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors, administrators, and other fiduciaries, including estate distributions.

Zeigler v. Bove Unpublished Decision (12-23-1998) · filed 1998-12-23(A)(1)(c), (A)(1)(m)

The trial court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction, over this matter, pursuant to R.C.2101.24(A)(1)(c) and (m). ... This statute provides, in pertinent part: ... (A)(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction: ... (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; ... We agree with the probate court's conclusion. ... Based upon the language of the complaint, we find the probate court had subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to order the distribution of estates.

In Re Estate of Lilley, Unpublished Decision (10-23-2006) · filed 2006-10-23(A)(1)(c)

The probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to "order the distribution of estates[.]" R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c).

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to take proof of wills, construe wills, and direct, control, and distribute testamentary estates.

In Matter of Geohring, Unpublished Decision (3-6-2007) · filed 2007-03-06

The court in Roll does not state the obvious further rationale that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to take proof of wills, to construe wills, and to direct, control and distribute testamentary estates. R.C. § 2101.24; Estate ofSnell v. Kilburn, 165 Ohio App.3d 352, 2005-Ohio-7076, ¶ 40. The general division of the court of common pleas would normally need to wait for these issues to be resolved before proceeding with a related tort action.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over matters related to administering and distributing an estate, including declaratory actions concerning the estate.

Grimes v. Grimes · filed 2007-10-19(A)(1)(c), (A)(1)(l)

R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c) provides that “[ejxcept as otherwise provided by law, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction * * * [t]o direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators and order the distribution of estates * * Therefore, any matter “related to the administration of an estate and the distribution of its assets [is] within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court.” ... R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(l) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction “[t]o render declaratory judgments, including, but not limited to, those rendered pursuant to section 2107.084 of the Revised Code.” ... R.C. 2101.24 and 2721.05 “taken together * * * give the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over declaratory actions brought ‘to determine any question arising out of the administration of the estate.’ ” ... Therefore, Lewis’s three claims, as executor, are related to the administration of Senior’s estate, and consequently, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over the action.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(m) gives the probate court jurisdiction to direct and control fiduciaries and settle their accounts in disputes concerning estate administration.

In Re Estate of Perry, Ca2007-03-061 (2-4-2008) · filed 2008-02-04(A)(1)(m)

Probate courts are vested "with jurisdiction when a justiciable dispute arises with respect to duties related to the administration of [a testator's] estate." Zuendel v. Zuendel (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 733,736; R.C. 2101.24(A)(1). ... Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(m), for instance, probate courts are vested with jurisdiction "[t]o direct and control the conduct of fiduciaries and settle their accounts * * *." ... As such controversy concerns the administration of the decedent's estate, including the duty of appellee to file an account of estate assets pursuant to R.C. 2109.30, we find the probate court did not err in ruling upon this issue.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over estate administration and distribution, while subsection (C) gives it plenary power to fully resolve matters properly before it, including determining ownership of estate assets.

In re Estate of Boone · filed 2010-12-15(A)(1)(c) (C)

The probate court has exclusive jurisdiction “[t]o direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators and order the distribution of estates.” R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c). ... “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.’ ” Estate of Snell v. Kilburn, 165 Ohio App.3d 352, 2005-Ohio-7076, at ¶ 41, quoting R.C. 2101.24(C). ... Pursuant to the court’s plenary power and its jurisdiction over the inventories of estates, the probate court in this case had subject-matter jurisdiction over the insurance proceeds. The insurance proceeds were included as an asset of the estate. Therefore, the court had jurisdiction to determine whether the proceeds properly belonged to the estate.

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

Rieser v. Rieser · filed 2010-12-17(A)(1)(c)

R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c) states: “Except as otherwise provided by law, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction * * * [t]o direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators and order the distribution of estates.” By negative implication, no other division of a common pleas court for a county has jurisdiction to do those things. In prohibiting Kathleen Perkins from proceeding as executor of the estate of Ruth Day in the federal action, the general division granted relief in a form that directs and controls the conduct of an executor appointed by the probate court, which is likewise a division of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. R.C. 2101.01. Notwithstanding its express reservation of jurisdiction, the general division lacked the power to grant relief in that form because it is a form of relief exclusive to the probate court’s exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on that court by R.C. 2101.24(A).

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether claimed property, including child-support arrearages, is an asset of an estate, so a juvenile court lacks jurisdiction to make that determination.

Miller v. McMichael, Unpublished Decision (12-15-2003) · filed 2003-12-15(A)(1)(c)

Clearly, Appellee's request that the arrearages be found an asset of Miller's estate is within the probate court's exclusive jurisdiction to decide questions of title to claimed assets of an estate.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(l) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to render declaratory judgments, including those under R.C. 2107.084.

Treadway v. Free Pentecostal Pater Ave. Church, Ca2007-05-139 (4-7-2008) · filed 2008-04-07(A)(1)(l)

Under 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 section 2107.084 of the Revised Code."

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

Florkey v. Malott · filed 2011-09-30(A)(1)(e)

And under 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[.]”

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to supervise executors and administrators, settle their accounts, and order estate distributions.

Hull v. Charter One Bank · filed 2013-05-23(A)(1)(c)

R.C. 2101.24, governing the jurisdiction of probate court, provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction: * * * [t]o direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators and order the distribution of estates.” R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c).

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) and (e) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving guardians and control of their conduct, while subsection (C) lets them fully adjudicate those matters and award necessary relief, including monetary damages.

Rheinhold v. Reichek · filed 2014-01-09(A)(1)(c), (A)(1)(e), and (C)

Under R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e), a probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to “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). ... The court adopted the view that: (1) claims for breach of fiduciary duty, which inexorably implicate control over the conduct of fiduciaries, are within the jurisdiction of the probate court by virtue of R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c) and (e), and (2) 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.

Section 2101.24(A)(2)(a) and (b) makes probate-court jurisdiction over a subject matter exclusive when the Revised Code expressly gives that jurisdiction to the probate court and not to another court or agency.

State ex rel. McGirr v. Winkler (Slip Opinion) · filed 2017-10-05(A)(2)(a) and (b)

And as R.C. 2101.24(A)(2)(a) and (b) make clear, the probate court's jurisdiction over a particular subject matter is exclusive when the Revised Code expressly confers jurisdiction over that subject matter upon the probate court and not upon any other court or agency.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives the probate court exclusive authority to settle administrators’ accounts and order the distribution of estates.

In re Estate of Harries · filed 2018-09-13(A)(1)(c)

Regardless, R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c) unambiguously grants the authority to the probate court to settle the accounts of administrators and order the distribution of the estates. This is the situation at bar, as the probate court ordered the distribution of the annuity. The probate court exercised authority over appellants themselves, not Genworth, seeing as Attorney Sommer was in possession of the annuity.

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

Vaughn v. Toyota Motor Corp. · filed 2016-02-24(A)(1)(c)

However, this Court lacks the jurisdiction “[t]o direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators and order the distribution of estates.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2101.24(A)(1)(c).

Section 2101.24 gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over specified probate matters, including declaratory judgments, and plenary power to resolve matters properly before them, including construing a separation agreement when necessary to determine and distribute estate assets.

Szokan v. Stevens · filed 2020-12-31(A)(1), (C)

Furthermore, a probate court “has plenary power at law or 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). ... Furthermore, emphasizing the probate court’s “plenary power” under R.C. 2101.24(C), Ohio appellate courts have concluded that such a court has the authority to interpret a separation agreement when such a declaration is necessary to determine the extent and ultimate distribution of estate assets. ... Here, it is undisputed that the deceased had sole possession of the bonds during the 15-year period prior to her death. Given these circumstances, a legitimate issue existed as to whether the bonds are estate assets. As a result, the determination of ownership of the bonds fell within the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction as a probate court. Moreover, in making that determination, the trial court had the authority to construe and apply the terms of the 2002 separation agreement.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(p) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over will-contest actions.

Powell v. Williams · filed 2022-02-24(A)(1)(p)

It is well-settled that proceedings in probate court are restricted to those actions permitted by statute and by the Constitution because the probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Corron v. Corron, 40 Ohio St.3d 75, 531 N.E.2d 708 (1988), paragraph one of the syllabus, citing Schucker v. Metcalf, 22 Ohio St.3d 33, 488 N.E.2d 210 (1986). Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(p), the probate court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction involving will-contest actions.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to control estate administration, settle executors’ and administrators’ accounts, and order estate distributions.

Allen v. Milligan · filed 2023-03-22(A)(1)(c)

The probate court has subject matter jurisdiction over such matters. See R.C.2101.24(A)(1)(c)(probate court has exclusive jurisdiction “to direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators and order the distribution of estates”); R.C. 2113.01(“[u]pon the death of a resident of this state who dies intestate, letters of administration of the decedent's estate shall be granted by the probate court of the county in which the decedent was a resident at the time of death”); R.C. 2123.01(“[w]henever property passes by the laws of intestate succession, or under a will to a beneficiary not named in such will, proceedings may be had in the probate court to determine the persons entitled to such property”).

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

In re Estate of Parks · filed 2024-05-13(A)(1)(b)

We also note that appointment of Phillips as special administrator is within the probate court's subject matter jurisdiction because R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(b) provides probate courts exclusive jurisdiction "[t]o grant and revoke letters testamentary and of administration."

Section 2101.24(1)(k) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to construe wills.

In re Estate of Devine v. Monroe Soc. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals · filed 2025-04-29(1)(k)

Under R.C. 2101.24(1)(k), “the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction . . . to construe wills.”

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction to control executors’ and administrators’ conduct, settle their accounts, and order estate distributions, removing estate-asset distribution from the common pleas court’s general jurisdiction.

Morris v. Turk · filed 2025-07-03(A)(1)(c)

R.C. 2101.24 gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction “[t]o direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of executors and administrators and order the distribution of estates.” R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c); see also Grimes v. Grimes, 2007-Ohio-5653, ¶ 17 (4th Dist.). By giving probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over the distribution of estate assets, the General Assembly has announced its desire to remove these matters from the jurisdiction of the general division of the common pleas court. See Lynch at id.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control a coexecutor's conduct in administering an estate.

Santomauro v. McLaughlin · filed 2022-07-19(A)(1)(c)

In simple terms, it means that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to tell a coexecutor what to do in the course of administering an estate.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over directing and controlling executors’ and administrators’ conduct, settling their accounts, and ordering estate distributions.

In re Estate of Troutman · filed 2026-03-13(A)(1)(c)

Throughout the proceedings regarding Troutman’s estate, the probate court has had 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(A)(1)(c).

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over directing and controlling executors, settling estate accounts, and distributing estates, while subsection (p) covers will contests; neither provision covers separate contract-enforcement counterclaims.

Hoelzer v. Kacachos · filed 2025-09-29(A)(1)(c) and (p)

They do not seek to direct Verda's conduct, settle estate accounts, or distribute estate assets, R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c), nor do their counterclaims challenge the validity of the 2020 Will.

Section 2101.24(C) gives the Probate Court exclusive jurisdiction over the conduct and account-settlement of executors and administrators, with plenary authority over matters properly before it.

Border v. Ohio Savings & Trust Co. · filed 1970-06-23(C)

R. 0. 2101.24, Paragraph C, 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.” R. C. 2101.24 further provides that where jurisdiction is conferred upon the Probate Court under this section, “such jurisdiction shall be exclusive in the Probate Court unless otherwise provided by law.” This section also provides that “the Probate Court shall have plenary power at law and in equity to dispose of any matter properly before the court, unless the power is expressly otherwise limited or denied by statute. ... The subject matter of the amended petition relates to the conduct of the defendant as executor of said estate and in the settlement of its accounts. ... Under the sections of the Revised Code cited herein, the jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action is exclusively vested in the Probate Court.

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 Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Probate Div. · filed 1995-11-01(A)(1)(k)

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(A)(1)(l) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to render declaratory judgments concerning matters arising in the administration of an estate, but it does not authorize a declaratory judgment about an estate that was closed decades earlier.

Weathington v. Hill · filed 2011-11-14(A)(1)(l)

The jurisdiction of a probate court is defined by R.C. 2101.24: ... (A)(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction: ... (l) To render declaratory judgments, including, but not limited to, those rendered pursuant to section 2107.0843 of the Revised Code; ... R.C. 2101.24(A). ... The questions involved in this declaratory judgment action did not arise “in the administration” of any estate. ... Therefore, the probate court did not have any statutory authority to render a declaratory judgment.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(l) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to render declaratory judgments concerning the administration of a decedent’s estate.

Patterson v. Church · filed 2013-05-09(A)(1)(l)

The Fourth District further found that probate court has the exclusive jurisdiction to “‘render declaratory judgments, including, but not limited to, those rendered pursuant to section 2107.084 of the Revised Code.’” Id. at ¶ 18, quoting R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(l). ... Reading R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(l) and 2721.05(C) together, the Fourth District held that probate court has the exclusive jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions relating to the administration of an estate. Grimes at ¶ 18. ... Thus, on the authority of Grimes and Sayer and the statutes they relied on, we find that the probate court is the court vested with jurisdiction to hear Patterson’s claims.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over fiduciary conduct and account settlements, declaratory judgments, and actions involving durable powers of attorney for health care.

Hadjuk v. Rusnak · filed 2024-02-01(c), (l), and (u)

R.C. 2101.24 (c), (l), and (u) provide that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control the conduct of fiduciaries and settle their account, render declaratory judgment, and to hear and determine actions relating to durable powers of attorney for health care. Thus, the probate court has jurisdiction over this action.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(b) and (c) gives probate courts general, exclusive jurisdiction over granting and revoking letters of administration and over controlling administrators, settling their accounts, and distributing estates, but those provisions do not themselves confer specific subject-matter jurisdiction to administer this estate.

State ex rel. Lee v. Trumbull Cty. 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(A)(1)(e) gives probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over guardianship proceedings.

Sanders v. Renaissance Restoration, Ltd. · filed 2025-04-17(A)(1)(e)

Probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over guardianship proceedings. R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e). Civ.R. 17(B) does not alter that jurisdictional limitation.

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

In Re Matter of Guardianship of Kinney, Unpublished Decision (6-14-2000) · filed 2000-06-14(A)(1)(d)

Moreover, under appellant's interpretation of the juvenile court's jurisdiction, the probate court could never appoint a guardian over the person of a minor because the juvenile court would have jurisdiction since guardianship of a person technically involves physical custody. This is an interpretation that is illogical and untenable. Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A) (1) (d), the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians. Masitto, supra at 68. Guardians may be appointed over both the person and the estate of a minor.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(d) gives the probate court jurisdiction to appoint guardians.

In Re Hoke, Unpublished Decision (5-8-2003) · filed 2003-05-08(A)(1)(d)

Appellant contends that the Probate Court was without jurisdiction to appoint the Steeles as Brookelyn's guardians. We disagree. R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(d) specifically provides the Probate Court with jurisdiction to appoint guardians.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(e) gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians, and that jurisdiction attaches when an application for appointment is filed.

In the Matter of Pierce, Unpublished Decision (7-22-2003) · filed 2003-07-22(A)(1)(e)

Under R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e), the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians. That jurisdiction attaches in any given case whenever application is made for the appointment of a guardian. In re Clendenning (1945), 145 Ohio St. 82, 89,60 N.E.2d 676, citing Shroyer v. Richmond (1866), 16 Ohio St. 455. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the probate court attached in July 2002, when Appellees filed the initial application for guardianship.

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

State ex rel. Florence v. Zitter · filed 2005-08-10(A)(1)(e)

“Under R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e), the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to appoint and remove guardians * * In re Guardianship of Lauder, 150 Ohio App.3d 277, 2002-Ohio-6102, 780 N.E.2d 1025, ¶ 36.

Section 2101.24 authorizes the probate court to appoint and remove guardians and gives it concurrent jurisdiction over actions involving powers of attorney.

In Re Guardianship of Thomas · filed 2002-03-12(A)(1)(e), (B)(1)(b)

R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e) grants the probate court the authority “[t]o appoint and remove guardians, conservators, and testamentary trustees, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts.” ... In addition to its exclusive jurisdiction, R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b) provides that the probate court has concurrent jurisdiction with the general division of the court of common pleas to hear and determine any action that involves “a power of attorney, including, but not limited to, a durable power of attorney.” ... Thus, while a durable power of attorney survives the incapacity of the principal, Ohio law provides that a guardian has the same power to revoke the power and authority of the attorney in fact that the principal would have had if the principal were not incompetent. In the present case, the record reflects that the trial court revoked the power of attorney while acting in its role as the superior guardian of the ward and, in so doing, the court assumed no greater rights than Thomas would have been able to exercise if she had been competent. Accordingly, we reject Jenkins’s contention that the trial court was without authority to revoke the power of attorney.

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

In Re Guardianship of Brady, 88294 (5-3-2007) · filed 2007-05-03(A)(1)(e)

In any event, it must be noted that the probate court has a general power to appoint and remove guardians, conservators, and testamentary trustees, direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts. R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e).

Section 2101.24(b) gives the probate court authority to revoke letters and remove an executrix.

In Re Mizer, Unpublished Decision (2-24-2005) · filed 2005-02-24(b)

Going now to the removal of the Executrix, R.C. 2101.24(b) clearly gives this authority to the court.

Section 2101.24 gives probate courts jurisdiction over guardianships and plenary power to investigate guardians.

State ex rel. Mitseff v. Park · filed 2011-10-24(A)(1)(e), (C)

The probate court has jurisdiction over guardianships pursuant to statute and further has the power to investigate guardians pursuant to the probate court’s ... plenary power.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(m) preserves the probate court's power to review and supervise a fiduciary's actions in administering an estate.

Modie v. Andrews, Unpublished Decision (10-23-2002) · filed 2002-10-23(A)(1)(m)

By filing exceptions to inventory, objections to the sale of probate assets, and a motion to remove the fiduciary, Modie and Borrelli were, in effect, asking the probate court to exercise its power of review pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(m). ... A probate court continues to retain the power to supervise a fiduciary's actions. See R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(m).

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(m) authorizes the probate court to direct and control the conduct of fiduciaries.

In re Estate of Damschroder · filed 2021-05-03(A)(1)(m)

Rather, we concur with the trial court that Debra’s request constituted a legitimate request by a beneficiary invoking the trial court’s authority to direct and control the conduct of the fiduciary. R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(m).

Section 2101.24(A)(1) gives the probate division jurisdiction over specified types of cases, while § 2101.24(A)(2) adds jurisdiction only when another Revised Code section expressly confers it.

In Re Petition of Stratcap Investments · filed 2003-08-29(A)(1) and (A)(2)

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. None of those types of cases involves approving the transfer of rights under any settlement agreement. We note, however, that R.C. 2101.24(A)(2) contains an additional grant of jurisdiction where another section of the Revised Code expressly confers subject-matter jurisdiction on the probate division.

Section 2101.24 does not give probate courts jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims.

Cain v. Panitch · filed 2018-04-24

Legal malpractice claims, however, "are not listed in R.C. 2101.24." Id. ... Finding the foregoing authority persuasive, we agree with the probate court's conclusion that appellants' claim for legal malpractice was not properly before it. Accordingly, the probate court did not err in dismissing such claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(l) gives probate courts jurisdiction to render declaratory judgments concerning estate matters.

Rudloff v. Efstathiadis, Unpublished Decision (12-5-2003) · filed 2003-12-05(A)(1)(l)

We also find that the probate court had jurisdiction to render the declaratory judgment requested by Rudloff that all transfers to the Efstathiadis be deemed invalid. Probate courts are given jurisdiction "to render declaratory judgments."

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(c) authorizes a probate court to order distribution of an estate, including directing an executrix to distribute corporate property to a trust.

Kasapis v. High Point Furniture Co., Inc., Unpublished Decision (1-25-2006) · filed 2006-01-25(A)(1)(c)

R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(c) provides the probate court with the authority to "order the distribution of estates[.]" Accordingly, the probate court was within its authority to order Ms. Kasapis, as executrix, to distribute High Point Furniture to the trust.

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives the probate court concurrent jurisdiction to determine title to disputed assets, in addition to its jurisdiction over concealment or embezzlement actions.

In Re Estate of Kelsey · filed 2006-03-10(B)(1)(b)

This court has also held that the probate court has concurrent jurisdiction, under R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(b), to determine title to disputed assets in addition to the jurisdiction granted under R.C. 2109.50 in concealment/embezzlement actions.

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(c)(4) gives the probate court jurisdiction to determine the title and status of personal property claimed to be an estate asset despite an alleged inter vivos transfer.

DeChellis v. Estate of DeChellis · filed 2020-10-29(B)(1)(c)(4)

The Ohio Constitution and statutes invest the Probate Court with the power and jurisdiction to adjudicate a matter relating to the title to and status of personal property, where, during the administration of a decedent's estate in such court, the estate files petition asking for a declaration that certain personal property is an asset of the estate and must be administered as such, as against the claim that such property was transferred as an inter vivos gift. (Ohio Constitution, Article III, Section 5; R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(c)(4)). Thus, a probate court has jurisdiction over an action brought pursuant to R.C. 2109.50 to recover funds allegedly passed to a third party by inter vivos transaction when the validity of the underlying transfer is challenged.

Section 2101.24(A)(1)(e) gives Ohio probate courts exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over guardianship actions.

State ex rel. Brawley v. Carnes · filed 2013-05-13(A)(1)(e)

Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e), a probate court in Ohio patently has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over guardianship actions.

Section 2101.24(B) gives the probate and general divisions of a court of common pleas concurrent jurisdiction to determine issues arising from an inter vivos or testamentary trust.

Phillips v. Deskin · filed 2013-07-11(B)

We note there exists concurrent jurisdiction between the probate and general divisions of a court of common pleas to determine issues arising out of an inter vivos or testamentary trust. R.C. 2101.24(B). ... We therefore conclude the claims under the declaratory judgment action are not related to issues regarding the administration of the estate and are not subject to the probate court's jurisdiction.

Section 2101.24(B)(1)(b) gives probate and common pleas courts concurrent jurisdiction over actions involving powers of attorney, subject to the statute's stated limitations.

Cartwright v. Batner · filed 2014-07-03(B)(1)(b)

As was noted, R.C. 2101.24 deals with the jurisdiction of probate courts. R.C. 2101.24(A)(1) provides the probate court with exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters, unless otherwise provided by law. However, actions based on powers of attorney are mentioned in the subsection of the statute that gives concurrent jurisdiction to probate and common pleas courts. ... Notably, the amendment did not give probate courts exclusive jurisdiction over such actions; only concurrent jurisdiction was provided.

Section 2101.24(B)(1) gives probate and common pleas courts concurrent jurisdiction over certain foreclosure actions involving a deceased mortgagor when an administrator or executor has been appointed and qualified, but the probate court could not exercise that jurisdiction here because the estate was closed and had no administrator.

In re Estate of Fields · filed 2016-08-12(B)(1)

In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court had concurrent jurisdiction, pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(B)(1), along with the General Division of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas and that the lower court should have intervened in the tax foreclosure action pursuant to that authority. ... At the time the action was commenced on January 26, 2015, the probate matter was closed and there was no administrator. Given the status of the case at the time, the probate court could hardly have exercised jurisdiction in the foreclosure action. Appellant’s first assignment of error is not well-taken.

Probate and common pleas courts have concurrent jurisdiction over actions involving estate real property, but opening an estate alone does not give the probate court jurisdiction over its sale.

Fifth Third Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Leveck · filed 2022-02-25(B)(1)(c)(i)

Pursuant to R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(c)(i): “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 * * * any action with respect to a probate estate * * * that involves * * * real property.” ... Based on Honaker, Home Owners’ Loan Corp., and Peoples Sav. Assn., we agree that merely opening an estate in the probate court does not by itself invoke a probate court’s jurisdiction over the sale of real property in a decedent’s estate. ... Rather, jurisdiction was first invoked in the court of common pleas when Fifth Third filed its foreclosure complaint.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction over wrongful-death settlement distributions when the statutory conditions are met and plenary authority to fully adjudicate matters properly before it.

Slater v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr. · filed 2018-04-17(A)(2)(a) and (b); (C)

R.C. 2101.24 delineates the jurisdiction of probate courts. As relevant to this case, that statute states: [T]he 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. (b) No section of the Revised Code expressly confers jurisdiction over that subject matter upon any other court or agency. ... This provision applies to the distribution of proceeds resulting from the settlement of a wrongful death action given the dictates of R.C. 2125.02 and 2125.03. ... According 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." Thus, with limited exception, R.C. 2101.24(C) endows probate courts with the authority to take whatever action is necessary to fully adjudicate any matter properly before them.

Section 2101.24 gives the probate court exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control fiduciaries and settle their accounts, but does not give it jurisdiction over claims against a ward or concurrent jurisdiction over this matter through the listed exceptions.

Sosnoswsky v. Koscianski · filed 2018-08-02(A)(1)(c), (C), and (B)(1)

R.C. 2101.24 does not provide for jurisdiction over claims made against a ward. ... These subsections provide that probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of (c) executors; (e) guardians, conservators, and testamentary trustees, and (m) fiduciaries. ... None of the enumerated exceptions in 2101.24(B)(1) confer probate court concurrent jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 2101.24 does not give a probate court jurisdiction over declaratory-judgment contract disputes that do not directly concern estate administration.

Wiggins v. Safeco · filed 2019-02-01(A)(1)(c), (A)(1)(l), (A)(1)(m), (A)(2), (B)(1)(a), and (B)(1)(c)(i)

The probate court has “jurisdiction when a justiciable dispute arises with respect to duties related to the administration of the estate.” ... It follows, then, that “[i]n determining whether a declaratory judgment action is properly before the probate court, the primary question is whether the matter is related to the administration of the estate.” ... The matters raised in Wiggins’s declaratory-judgment action were not directly related to the administration of his wife’s estate. ... “A probate court * * * lacks jurisdiction to enter declaratory judgments over contract disputes.” ... “R.C. 2101.24 does not grant a probate court jurisdiction to resolve breach of contract actions or a declaration of rights under an enforceable contract.” ... The contract claims do not directly implicate the administration of the estate.

A probate court has concurrent jurisdiction with the general division of the court of common pleas over a subject matter only when a Revised Code section expressly states that jurisdiction is concurrent or a judicial decision has construed it as concurrent.

State ex rel. Reynolds v. Kirby · filed 2023-03-16(B)(1)(a)

R.C. 2101.24(B)(1) sets forth three circumstances in which a probate court has jurisdiction concurrent with that of the general division of the court of common pleas. The only provision of that statute that could apply to the facts of the underlying case authorizes a probate court to exercise jurisdiction concurrent with that of the general division of the court of common pleas in an action involving a particular subject matter “[i]f jurisdiction relative to [that] subject matter is stated to be concurrent in a section of the Revised Code or has been construed by judicial decision to be concurrent.” R.C. 2101.24(B)(1)(a). R.C. 2945.44 does not expressly grant concurrent jurisdiction to probate courts, and Reynolds has cited no decision construing that statute as conferring such jurisdiction. ... In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the probate-juvenile court’s status as a probate court does not vest it with jurisdiction to grant witness immunity under R.C. 2945.44.

Section 2101.24(C) gives a probate court plenary power over matters properly before it, but that power does not extend to issuing orders after a minor guardianship ends at the ward’s age of majority.

In re Guardianship of Hollins · filed 2007-09-19(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.” ... “When a guardianship is predicated exclusively on a ward’s minor status, the guardian’s power and the probate court’s jurisdiction both terminate when the ward reaches the age of majority. The probate court was therefore without jurisdiction to issue any order once Hollins turned 18; the only power the court had after that date was to consider McLeod’s final accounting.”