The attorney general is a necessary party to and shall be served with process or with summons by registered mail in all judicial proceedings, the object of which is to:
(A) Terminate a charitable trust or distribute assets;
(B) Depart from the objects or purposes of a charitable trust as the same are set forth in the instrument creating the trust, including any proceeding for the application of the doctrine of cy pres or deviation;
(C) Construe the provisions of an instrument with respect to a charitable trust;
(D) Determine the validity of a will having provisions for a charitable trust.
A judgment rendered in such proceedings without service of process or summons upon the attorney general is void, unenforceable, and shall be set aside upon the attorney general's motion seeking such relief. The attorney general shall intervene in any judicial proceeding affecting a charitable trust when requested to do so by the court having jurisdiction of the proceeding, and may intervene in any judicial proceeding affecting a charitable trust when he determines that the public interest should be protected in such proceeding.
Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, Inc. v. Lynch, 2002 Ohio 3748 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 27ד] Trusts—Action to adjudicate existence of a constructive trust for which no formal trust instrument exists and to substitute a new trustee is not subject to requirement of R.C. 109.25 that Attorney General be served with process or summons by registered mail—Failure of original…”
Univ. Hospitals of Cleveland, Inc. v. Lynch, 96 Ohio St. 3d 118 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 23דMontgomery, with notice of the action rendered the trial court’s judgment voidable at the request of the Attorney General pursuant to R.C. 109.25. I Factual Background A The Original Action {¶ 3} The term “practice plan” as used herein refers to an entity, sometimes…”
State ex rel. Lee v. Montgomery, 724 N.E.2d 1148 (Ohio 2000). “The Attorney General, a necessary party to the proceeding under R.C. 109.25, represented the charitable trust beneficiaries in the probate case.”
Trumbull Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Rickard, 2017 Ohio 8143 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “{¶ 3} The Board's complaint alleged claims related to charitable trust assets and, therefore, named the Attorney General as a necessary and indispensable party-defendant, pursuant to R.C. 109.25. The Attorney General filed an answer and a cross-claim against Defendants on behalf…”
Trubulas v. Doland, 528 N.E.2d 1313 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2ד06 of the Revised Code had the testator died intestate; “(C) The executor or the administrator with the will annexed; “(D) The attorney general as provided by section 109.25 of the Revised Code; “(E) Other interested parties.”
First Merit Bank, N.A. v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 2018 Ohio 2689 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2דIn accordance with section 109.25 of the Revised Code, the attorney general is a necessary party to a judicial proceeding brought under this section.”
In re Est. of Taylor, 2024 Ohio 1496 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “06 if the testator had died -15- intestate; the “executor or administrator with the will annexed”; and “[o]ther interested parties.”
Daloia v. Franciscan Health Sys. of Cent. Ohio, Inc., 1997 Ohio 402 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 2דThe trial court determined that the Attorney General was a necessary party pursuant to R.C. 109.25. R.C. 109.25 provides: “The attorney general is a necessary party to and shall be served with process or with summons by registered mail in all judicial proceedings, the object of…”
Kromer v. Arthritis Found., Inc., 2025 Ohio 661 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 8דKromer first argues that R.C. 109.25, not R.C. 109.24, applies to his action.”
In Re Trust of Lowry, 885 N.E.2d 296 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2דIn accordance with section 109.25 of the Revised Code, the attorney general is a necessary party to a judicial proceeding brought under this section.”
In re Est. of Moritz v. Ohio State Univ., 2020 Ohio 5012 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “The Ohio AG asserted he was a necessary party pursuant to R.C. 109.25(A)-(D). OSU maintained it had a direct and vital interest in the outcome of the matter and, as such, should be recognized as “already a party to this proceeding.”
State ex rel. Lee v. Montgomery, 2000 Ohio 316 (Ohio 2000). “The Attorney General, a necessary party to the proceeding under R.C. 109.25, represented the charitable trust beneficiaries in the probate case.”
Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, Inc. v. Lynch, 2002 Ohio 3748 (Ohio 2002). “] Trusts—Action to adjudicate existence of a constructive trust for which no formal trust instrument exists and to substitute a new trustee is not subject to requirement of R.C. 109.25 that Attorney General be served with process or summons by registered mail—Failure of original…”
Univ. Hospitals of Cleveland, Inc. v. Lynch, 96 Ohio St. 3d 118 (Ohio 2002). “Montgomery, with notice of the action rendered the trial court’s judgment voidable at the request of the Attorney General pursuant to R.C. 109.25. I Factual Background A The Original Action {¶ 3} The term “practice plan” as used herein refers to an entity, sometimes…”
In re Est. of Moritz v. Ohio State Univ., 2020 Ohio 5012 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “The Ohio AG asserted he was a necessary party pursuant to R.C. 109.25(A)-(D). OSU maintained it had a direct and vital interest in the outcome of the matter and, as such, should be recognized as “already a party to this proceeding.”
Kromer v. Arthritis Found., Inc., 2025 Ohio 661 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “Kromer first argues that R.C. 109.25, not R.C. 109.24, applies to his action.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 109.25(B): 3 cases
Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, Inc. v. Lynch, 2002 Ohio 3748 (Ohio 2002). “] Trusts—Action to adjudicate existence of a constructive trust for which no formal trust instrument exists and to substitute a new trustee is not subject to requirement of R.C. 109.25 that Attorney General be served with process or summons by registered mail—Failure of original…”
Univ. Hospitals of Cleveland, Inc. v. Lynch, 96 Ohio St. 3d 118 (Ohio 2002). “Montgomery, with notice of the action rendered the trial court’s judgment voidable at the request of the Attorney General pursuant to R.C. 109.25. I Factual Background A The Original Action {¶ 3} The term “practice plan” as used herein refers to an entity, sometimes…”
Kromer v. Arthritis Found., Inc., 2025 Ohio 661 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “Kromer first argues that R.C. 109.25, not R.C. 109.24, applies to his action.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.