Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2105 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2105.19 (2026)

Persons prohibited from benefiting by the death of another

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 22, 2019
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 595 - 132nd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) Except as provided in division (C) of this section, no person who is convicted of, pleads guilty to, or is found not guilty by reason of insanity of a violation of or complicity in the violation of section 2903.01, 2903.02, or 2903.03 of the Revised Code or a violation of division (A) of section 2903.04 of the Revised Code that is not a proximate result of a felony violation of section 2903.06 of the Revised Code, or of an existing or former law of any other state, the United States, or a foreign nation, substantially equivalent to a violation of or complicity in the violation of any of these sections, no person who is indicted for a violation of or complicity in the violation of any of those sections or laws and subsequently is adjudicated incompetent to stand trial on that charge, and no juvenile who is found to be a delinquent child by reason of committing an act that, if committed by an adult, would be a violation of or complicity in the violation of any of those sections or laws, shall in any way benefit by the death. All property of the decedent, and all money, insurance proceeds, or other property or benefits payable or distributable in respect of the decedent's death, shall pass or be paid or distributed as if the person who caused the death of the decedent had predeceased the decedent.

(B) A person prohibited by division (A) of this section from benefiting by the death of another is a constructive trustee for the benefit of those entitled to any property or benefit that the person has obtained, or over which the person has exerted control, because of the decedent's death. A person who purchases any such property or benefit from the constructive trustee, for value, in good faith, and without notice of the constructive trustee's disability under division (A) of this section, acquires good title, but the constructive trustee is accountable to the beneficiaries for the proceeds or value of the property or benefit.

(C) A person who is prohibited from benefiting from a death pursuant to division (A) of this section either because the person was adjudicated incompetent to stand trial or was found not guilty by reason of insanity, or the person's guardian appointed pursuant to Chapter 2111. of the Revised Code or other legal representative, may file a complaint to declare the person's right to benefit from the death in the probate court in which the decedent's estate is being administered or that released the estate from administration. The complaint shall be filed no later than sixty days after the person is adjudicated incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of insanity. The court shall notify each person who is a devisee or legatee under the decedent's will, or if there is no will, each person who is an heir of the decedent pursuant to section 2105.06 of the Revised Code that a complaint of that nature has been filed within ten days after the filing of the complaint. The person who files the complaint, and each person who is required to be notified of the filing of the complaint under this division, is entitled to a jury trial in the action. To assert the right, the person desiring a jury trial shall demand a jury in the manner prescribed in the Civil Rules.

A person who files a complaint pursuant to this division shall be restored to the person's right to benefit from the death unless the court determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person would have been convicted of a violation of, or complicity in the violation of, section 2903.01, 2903.02, or 2903.03 of the Revised Code or a violation of division (A) of section 2903.04 of the Revised Code that is not a proximate result of a felony violation of section 2903.06 of the Revised Code, or of a law of another state, the United States, or a foreign nation that is substantially similar to any of those sections, if the person had been brought to trial in the case in which the person was adjudicated incompetent or if the person were not insane at the time of the commission of the offense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases, 1954–2020 · leading case: State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Exam'r's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8714 (Ohio 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Exam'r's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8714 (Ohio 2017). · cites it 4× “See R.C 2105.19. Moreover, there may be compelling policy arguments against providing the full and complete coroner's record relating to a child whom the requesting parent has been convicted of murdering.”
Ahmed v. Ahmed, 817 N.E.2d 424 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 19× “Under the United States Supreme Court’s most recent decision, ERISA preempts R.C. 2105.19, since plan administrators would otherwise be obliged to master the relevant laws of the 50 states and contend with litigation, thus undermining the goals of ERISA.”
Shrader v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of United States, 485 N.E.2d 1031 (Ohio 1985). · cites it 7× “I The first issue in this case is whether R.C. 2105.19, dealing with persons prohibited from benefiting from the death of another, is applicable in this case.”
In Re Est. of Fiore, 476 N.E.2d 1093 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 11× “The referee found appellant had been convicted of the decedent’s murder, and thus was barred by R.C. 2105.19 from benefitting in any way from the death of appellee’s decedent.”
Huff v. Union Fid. Life Ins., 470 N.E.2d 236 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 6× “2d 64 ] (both applying the prior statutory form of R.C. 2105.19); cf. Neff v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins.”
Ford v. Ford, 512 A.2d 389 (Md. 1986). · cites it 2× “); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2105.19 (Page 1976, Cum.”
Henkel v. Stratton, 612 F. Supp. 190 (N.D. Ohio 1985). · cites it 5× “Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2105.19 (Page 1985).”
In Re Est. of Cotton, 662 N.E.2d 63 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 13× “Defendant’s single assignment of error states: “The court erred in applying common law to disqualify appellant from inheritance as surviving spouse, where O.R.C. 2105.19. (the civil disqualification statute) is the exclusive method by which to determine the beneficiary status of…”
Bradley v. Farmers New World Life Ins., 679 N.E.2d 1178 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “First, it is an absolute that Lionel Harris, the murderer, could not in any way benefit from Ellen’s death because of the provisions of R.C. 2105.19 (persons prohibited from benefiting by the death of another).”
Alston v. Alston, 212 N.E.2d 65 (Ohio Ct. App. 1964). · cites it 6× “Alston received no assets whatsoever from the estate of her deceased husband and that no proceedings of any kind were instituted in any court to give effect to the provisions of Section 2105.19 of the Revised Code, entitled “Murderer not to benefit,” which section reads in part…”
Aetna Life Ins. v. Schilling, 616 N.E.2d 893 (Ohio 1993). “For example, R.C. 2105.19 prohibits a murderer from collecting on the victim’s policy in which he has been designated as the beneficiary.”
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Blanton, 118 F. Supp. 3d 980 (N.D. Ohio 2015). · cites it 4× “The parties eventually consented to have Prudential deposit the proceeds in an interest-bearing account with the court’s registry, and to my dismissal, with prejudice, of Prudential as a party.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2105.19(A) — 8 cases
State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Exam'r's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8714 (Ohio 2017). “See R.C 2105.19. Moreover, there may be compelling policy arguments against providing the full and complete coroner's record relating to a child whom the requesting parent has been convicted of murdering.”
Ahmed v. Ahmed, 817 N.E.2d 424 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). “Under the United States Supreme Court’s most recent decision, ERISA preempts R.C. 2105.19, since plan administrators would otherwise be obliged to master the relevant laws of the 50 states and contend with litigation, thus undermining the goals of ERISA.”
Huff v. Union Fid. Life Ins., 470 N.E.2d 236 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “2d 64 ] (both applying the prior statutory form of R.C. 2105.19); cf. Neff v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins.”
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Blanton, 118 F. Supp. 3d 980 (N.D. Ohio 2015). “The parties eventually consented to have Prudential deposit the proceeds in an interest-bearing account with the court’s registry, and to my dismissal, with prejudice, of Prudential as a party.”
Shrader v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of United States, 485 N.E.2d 1031 (Ohio 1985). “I The first issue in this case is whether R.C. 2105.19, dealing with persons prohibited from benefiting from the death of another, is applicable in this case.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2105.19(B) — 1 case
Ahmed v. Ahmed, 817 N.E.2d 424 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). “Under the United States Supreme Court’s most recent decision, ERISA preempts R.C. 2105.19, since plan administrators would otherwise be obliged to master the relevant laws of the 50 states and contend with litigation, thus undermining the goals of ERISA.”
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.