Background
David R. Murphy died in July 2025, leaving three daughters: Letisha Burkitt, Tamara George, and Rachel Mackey. Burkitt submitted Murphy’s will for probate and sought appointment as fiduciary. The probate court admitted the will and issued Burkitt a letter of authority, but that same day ordered her to show cause why she should not be removed because of concerns involving an estate form and the application of Ohio’s interested-witness statute.
After Burkitt and Mackey responded, the probate court vacated Burkitt’s letter of authority on a different ground. It stated that the will did not name Burkitt as fiduciary and that no hearing had occurred on her application for authority. The court declared the letter issued in error, ordered Burkitt to account for assets she had marshalled, directed that the status quo be maintained, and planned a status conference to determine the next steps. Burkitt appealed.
The Court’s Holding
A divided panel affirmed. The majority held that the only issue properly before it was whether the probate court abused its discretion by removing Burkitt because the will named no fiduciary and the court wanted to conduct an appointment hearing. The probate court had not finally decided its earlier concerns about the estate form or the interested-witness statute, so those questions were outside the appeal’s scope.
The majority concluded that the probate court satisfied R.C. 2109.24’s notice requirement by giving the parties 30 days to submit briefs concerning Burkitt’s possible removal. It further held that conducting a fiduciary-appointment hearing was reasonable where the will named no fiduciary and Murphy had multiple heirs. The court therefore found no abuse of discretion in vacating Burkitt’s authority so such a hearing could occur.
Judge Tucker dissented. He reasoned that Burkitt received notice and an opportunity to respond only to the estate-form and interested-witness issues, not to the different rationale the probate court ultimately used. In his view, removing her without an opportunity to address that stated basis violated procedural due process and required reversal and remand.
Key Takeaways
- The appellate court confined its review to the ground actually stated in the probate court’s removal order.
- The majority held that 30 days to brief Burkitt’s possible removal satisfied the statutory notice requirement.
- The dissent concluded that due process required an opportunity to respond specifically to the probate court’s actual reason for removal.
Why It Matters
The decision permits the probate court to remove an appointed fiduciary before holding a new appointment hearing when, under these circumstances, the will names no fiduciary, multiple heirs exist, and the statutory notice requirement has been met. It does not resolve whether the estate filing was defective or whether Ohio’s interested-witness statute affects the will.
The dissent highlights a procedural risk for probate courts: when the ultimate reason for removal differs from the grounds stated in the notice, the fiduciary may argue that the process denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard.