If a devise or bequest is made to a person who is one of only two witnesses to a will, the devise or bequest is void. The witness shall then be competent to testify to the execution of the will, as if the devise or bequest had not been made. If the witness would have been entitled to a share of the testator's estate in case the will was not established, the witness takes so much of that share that does not exceed the bequest or devise to the witness. The devisees and legatees shall contribute for that purpose as for an absent or afterborn child under section 2107.34 of the Revised Code.
In re Est. of Shaffer (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6973 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 27ד24, which provides a process for admitting a purported will to probate despite its failure to fully adhere to those formal requirements; and R.C. 2107.15, which voids a will’s devise to a witness if that witness was essential to establishing the validity of the will.”
Rogers v. Helmes, 432 N.E.2d 186 (Ohio 1982). · cites it 4דWe reject defendant-appellee’s assertion that “the legislature did not feel that a witness taking an interest under a will was competent, or there would be no need for the saving provision of Section 2107.15, Revised Code, making a witness competent after voiding his bequest or…”
In re Est. of Shaffer (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6672 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 26ד24, which provides a process for admitting a purported will to probate despite its failure to fully adhere to those formal requirements; and R.C. 2107.15, which voids a will’s devise to a witness if that witness was essential to establishing the validity of the SUPREME COURT OF…”
In re Est. of Shaffer, 2019 Ohio 234 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 11ד{¶ 31} In his fourth assignment of error, appellant first argues the trial court erred in voiding a bequest to Norman pursuant to R.C. 2107.15 in a proceeding to admit the will to probate pursuant to R.”
Hairelson v. Est. of Franks, 720 N.E.2d 989 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 15ד” Appellant argued that decedent’s will was valid in Ohio, but also argued that pursuant to R.C. 2107.15, the bequests to Codere and Peters were void because they were interested witnesses to the will.”
Naple v. Bednarik, 2012 Ohio 5881 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “See R.C. 2107.15. However, such was not the case here; there were two additional competent witnesses to the will's execution: Donna Mason and Sherrie Burton.”
Lehmann v. Westhoeffer, 2021 Ohio 529 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4ד2020 AP 01 0001 6 {¶ 17} On June 20, 2019, appellant filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment" wherein appellant argued the probate court erred in admitting the will to probate without first invalidating any devises and bequests to Westhoefer, citing R.C. 2107.15 which voids a…”
Chambers v. Davis, 2014 Ohio 2804 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2ד{¶2} The magistrate determined, after a hearing, that all bequests in the will were valid, except the bequest to Dove, which was invalidated under R.C. 2107.15 because Dove’s testimony as a witness to the signing of the will had been necessary for admission of the will.”
Fazekas v. Gobozy, 150 N.E.2d 319 (Ohio Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 3דThere is nothing in the statutes on wills, except as may be contained *261 in §2107.15 R. C., which determines under what circumstances a person is an incompetent witness to a will.”
Brandon v. City Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 160 Ohio St. (N.S.) 529 (Ohio 1954). · cites it 2דA devise or bequest to a person who is a witness to the will, which can not be proved except by his testimony, is declared void by Section 10504-19, General Code (Section 2107.15, Revised Code). The rights of inheritance of a pretermitted child or heir for whom no provision is…”
Blankner v. Lathrop, 169 Ohio St. (N.S.) 229 (Ohio 1959). · cites it 2ד” Section 2107.15, Revised Code, specially treats with witnesses to a will who are devisees or legatees thereunder, and voids such devise or bequest if the will cannot be proved except by such testimony.”
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.