(1) In the county in this state in which the testator was domiciled at the time of the testator's death;
(2) In any county of this state where any real property or personal property of the testator is located if, at the time of the testator's death, the testator was not domiciled in this state, and provided that the will has not previously been admitted to probate in this state or in the state of the testator's domicile;
(3) In the county of this state in which a court rendered a judgment declaring that the will was valid pursuant to division (A)(1) of section 5817.10 of the Revised Code.
(B) For the purpose of division (A)(2) of this section, intangible personal property is located in the place where the instrument evidencing a debt, obligation, stock, or chose in action is located or if there is no instrument of that nature where the debtor resides.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1962–2024 · leading case: Carlin v. Mambuca, 645 N.E.2d 737 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1994).
Carlin v. Mambuca, 645 N.E.2d 737 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1994). · cites it 8ד” Within this assignment of error, Mambuca asserts that R.C. 2107.11 does not afford a basis for the probate court to exercise jurisdiction over this matter.”
In re Est. of Rush, 2014-Ohio-3293. · cites it 9דIn this case, the probate court considered its jurisdiction to probate Decedent's will under R.C. 2107.11 after it -7- Warren CA2013-10-103 concluded that Decedent was a domiciliary of Arizona.”
State ex rel. Lee v. Trumbull Cnty. Prob. Court, 700 N.E.2d 4 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 2דIn this regard, the probate court claimed in its dismissal motion that it had properly assumed jurisdiction over Isaly’s estate pursuant to R.C. 2107.11 and 2113.01. But neither of these statutes confers jurisdiction on the probate court to administer Isaly’s estate.”
Lesueur v. Robinson, 557 N.E.2d 796 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1988). · cites it 2דThus, the trial court concluded that Fulton County would have jurisdiction to probate her will under R.C. 2107.11, which states: “A will shall be admitted to probate: “(A) in the county in which the testator was domiciled if, at the time of his death, he was domiciled in this…”
Prokos v. Hines, 2014-Ohio-1415. “However, R.C. 2107.11, provides: “(A) A will shall be admitted to probate: (1) In the county in this state in which the testator was domiciled at the time of the testator’s death; (2) In any county of this state where any real property or personal property of the testator is…”
Daubel v. Dineen, 2012-Ohio-5924. · cites it 11דInstead, Appellants argue that the Lorain Court lacked authority to entertain the underlying administration action based upon the provision of R.C. 2107.11, entitled “Jurisdiction to Probate.”
State ex rel. Lee v. Trumbull Cty. Prob. Court, 83 Ohio St. 3d 369 (1998). · cites it 2ד{¶ 17} In this regard, the probate court claimed in its dismissal motion that it had properly assumed jurisdiction over Isaly’s estate pursuant to R.C. 2107.11 and 2113.01. But neither of these statutes confers jurisdiction on the probate court to administer Isaly’s estate.”
In re Est. of Paich, 186 N.E.2d 755 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1962). · cites it 4דBefore the application was heard, a motion was filed on behalf of Olga Hirsehenberger, the principal beneficiary under the will, who resides in West Germany, seeking to have the ap *472 plication dismised for want of jurisdiction as not coming within the provisions of Section…”
Hadjuk v. Rusnak, 2024-Ohio-339, 235 N.E.3d 502. · cites it 2דHadjuk subsequently filed an action for declaratory judgment in the same court. “‘The probate court is a court of limited jurisdiction and thus cannot exercise authority other than that specifically granted by statute or the constitution.”
In re Est. of Bringman, 2017-Ohio-7083. “{¶9} Appellant herein relies in large measure on R.C. 2107.11(A)(1), which states that “[a] will shall be admitted to probate *** [i]n the county in this state in which the testator was domiciled at the time of the testator's death.”
Peau v. Moseley, 9 Ohio St. 2d 13 (1966). · cites it 4דSection 2107.11, Revised Code. 6. There is a specific provision for election in the instance of a will made in a country other than the United States and its territories and admitted to record in Ohio (Section 2129.”
In re Est. of Torbett, 2017-Ohio-417. · cites it 3ד" R.C. 2107.11 further -6- Fayette CA2016-02-004 addresses the jurisdiction of probate courts to probate a will.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.11(A): 1 case
Carlin v. Mambuca, 645 N.E.2d 737 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1994). “” Within this assignment of error, Mambuca asserts that R.C. 2107.11 does not afford a basis for the probate court to exercise jurisdiction over this matter.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.11(A)(1): 3 cases
In re Est. of Rush, 2014-Ohio-3293. “In this case, the probate court considered its jurisdiction to probate Decedent's will under R.C. 2107.11 after it -7- Warren CA2013-10-103 concluded that Decedent was a domiciliary of Arizona.”
In re Est. of Bringman, 2017-Ohio-7083. “{¶9} Appellant herein relies in large measure on R.C. 2107.11(A)(1), which states that “[a] will shall be admitted to probate *** [i]n the county in this state in which the testator was domiciled at the time of the testator's death.”
In re Est. of Torbett, 2017-Ohio-417. “" R.C. 2107.11 further -6- Fayette CA2016-02-004 addresses the jurisdiction of probate courts to probate a will.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.11(A)(2): 1 case
In re Est. of Rush, 2014-Ohio-3293. “In this case, the probate court considered its jurisdiction to probate Decedent's will under R.C. 2107.11 after it -7- Warren CA2013-10-103 concluded that Decedent was a domiciliary of Arizona.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.11(A)(3): 1 case
Daubel v. Dineen, 2012-Ohio-5924. “Instead, Appellants argue that the Lorain Court lacked authority to entertain the underlying administration action based upon the provision of R.C. 2107.11, entitled “Jurisdiction to Probate.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.11(B): 1 case
Carlin v. Mambuca, 645 N.E.2d 737 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1994). “” Within this assignment of error, Mambuca asserts that R.C. 2107.11 does not afford a basis for the probate court to exercise jurisdiction over this matter.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.11(C): 1 case
Daubel v. Dineen, 2012-Ohio-5924. “Instead, Appellants argue that the Lorain Court lacked authority to entertain the underlying administration action based upon the provision of R.C. 2107.11, entitled “Jurisdiction to Probate.”
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.