Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2101
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2101.01 (2026)

Probate division - location - equipment - employees

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
January 13, 2012
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 124 - 129th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) A probate division of the court of common pleas shall be held at the county seat in each county in an office furnished by the board of county commissioners, in which the books, records, and papers pertaining to the probate division shall be deposited and safely kept by the probate judge. The board shall provide suitable equipment or other necessary items for the safekeeping and preservation of the books, records, and papers of the court and shall furnish any books, forms, and stationery, and any machines, equipment, and materials for the keeping or examining of records, that the probate judge requires in the discharge of official duties. The board also shall authorize expenditures for accountants, financial consultants, and other agents required for auditing or financial consulting by the probate division whenever the probate judge considers these services and expenditures necessary for the efficient performance of the division's duties. The probate judge shall employ and supervise all clerks, deputies, magistrates, and other employees of the probate division. The probate judge shall supervise all probate court investigators and assessors in the performance of their duties as investigators and assessors and shall employ, appoint, or designate all probate court investigators and assessors in the manner described in divisions (A)(2) and (3) of section 2101.11 of the Revised Code.

(B) As used in the Revised Code:

(1) Except as provided in division (B)(2) of this section, "probate court" means the probate division of the court of common pleas, and "probate judge" means the judge of the court of common pleas who is judge of the probate division.

(2) With respect to Lorain county:

(a) From February 9, 2009, through September 28, 2009, "probate court" means the domestic relations division of the court of common pleas, and "probate judge" means each of the judges of the court of common pleas who are judges of the domestic relations division.

(b) The judge of the court of common pleas, division of domestic relations, whose term begins on February 9, 2009, and successors, shall be the probate judge beginning September 29, 2009, and shall be elected and designated as judge of the court of common pleas, probate division.

(C) Except as otherwise provided in this division, all pleadings, forms, journals, and other records filed or used in the probate division shall be entitled "In the Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division," but are not defective if entitled "In the Probate Court." In Lorain county, from February 9, 2009, through September 28, 2009, all pleadings, forms, journals, and other records filed or used in probate matters shall be entitled "In the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division," but are not defective if entitled "In the Probate Division" or "In the Probate Court."
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1955–2023 · leading case: State v. Gabriel, 867 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Gabriel, 867 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “01(A)(1), a probate statute addressing a presumption of death after five years, has no place in a criminal prosecution.”
State ex rel. Grendell v. Walder (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 204 (Ohio 2022). “{¶ 59} Finally, Walder makes a passing argument that Geauga County’s automatic data processing board would need to approve the Geauga courts’ use of Company 119’s services.”
Rieser v. Rieser, 947 N.E.2d 222 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “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.”
In re Est. of Vaughan, 740 N.E.2d 259 (Ohio 2001). “It is illogical that the probate division of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas would refuse to acknowledge the adjudication of Angel’s paternity by the juvenile division of the same court so as to establish that child’s entitlement to inherit.”
State v. Tolbert, 2015 Ohio 4733 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “R.C. 2101.01, State v. Cotton (1978), 56 Ohio St.”
Williams v. Summit Cnty. (N.D. Ohio 2023). · cites it 2× “This capacity includes Judge Stormer’s duty and authority to “employ and supervise all clerks, deputies, magistrates, and other employees of the probate division” pursuant to O.R.C. § 2101.01(A), including the courthouse deputies whose actions are discussed herein, as well has…”
Fitch v. Am. Elec. Power Sys. Comprehensive Med. Plan (S.D. Ohio 2021). · cites it 2× “See Ohio Rev. Code § 2101.01(A). Neither AEP nor the AEP Plan challenge whether this form of remand is permitted under the federal remand statute, 28 U.”
State ex rel. Grendell v. Walder (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 211 (Ohio 2022). “{¶ 59} Finally, Walder makes a passing argument that Geauga County’s automatic data processing board would need to approve the Geauga courts’ use of Company 119’s services.”
State ex rel. Finley v. Pfeiffer, 163 Ohio St. (N.S.) 149 (Ohio 1955). · cites it 2× “The dissenting judge was of the opinion that the Probate Court is not a court of general jurisdiction but one of limited jurisdiction; that in Section 2101.01, Revised Code, it is provided that a Probate Court is established for each county and shall be held at the county seat…”
In re Est. of Vaughan, 2001 Ohio 222 (Ohio 2001). “It is illogical that the probate division of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas would refuse to acknowledge the adjudication of Angel’s paternity by the juvenile division of the same court so as to establish that child’s entitlement to inherit. {¶ 27} Nevertheless, the…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2101.01(A) — 2 cases
Williams v. Summit Cnty. (N.D. Ohio 2023). “This capacity includes Judge Stormer’s duty and authority to “employ and supervise all clerks, deputies, magistrates, and other employees of the probate division” pursuant to O.R.C. § 2101.01(A), including the courthouse deputies whose actions are discussed herein, as well has…”
Fitch v. Am. Elec. Power Sys. Comprehensive Med. Plan (S.D. Ohio 2021). “See Ohio Rev. Code § 2101.01(A). Neither AEP nor the AEP Plan challenge whether this form of remand is permitted under the federal remand statute, 28 U.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2101.01(A)(1) — 1 case
State v. Gabriel, 867 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “01(A)(1), a probate statute addressing a presumption of death after five years, has no place in a criminal prosecution.”
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.