Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2107
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.73 (2026)

Parties to will contest action

✓ 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
 

Persons who are necessary parties to a will contest action are as follows:

(A) Any person designated in a will to receive a testamentary disposition of real or personal property;

(B) Heirs who would take property pursuant to section 2105.06 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Krischbaum v. Dillon, 567 N.E.2d 1291 (Ohio 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Krischbaum v. Dillon, 567 N.E.2d 1291 (Ohio 1991). · cites it 4× “VII In his third and final proposition of law, Dillon contends that the plaintiffs did not properly join the necessary parties in the will contest action as mandated pursuant to R.C. 2107.73, 12 and that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Koehler was not…”
In re Est. of Taylor, 2024 Ohio 1496 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “First, Michael never sought to amend the pleading to add parties that are necessary in will contests under R.C. 2107.73. This is not a jurisdictional defect but is grounds for dismissing an action.”
Trubulas v. Doland, 528 N.E.2d 1313 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “Doland correctly notes that certain persons are listed as necessary parties to a will contest action in R.C. 2107.73. 3 Further, Doland notes that the statute of limitations period for a will contest is four months.”
Weaver v. Donnerberg, 498 N.E.2d 496 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “71, but in this action neither church was named as a party defendant nor was the named executor named in his representative capacity in the caption as required by R.C. 2107.73. Subsequently, on May 31,1984, both Miriam E.”
Birman v. Sproat, 546 N.E.2d 1354 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). “” In her first assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred to her detriment when it sustained the motions for summary judgment on the issue of testamentary capacity. See, also, R.C. 2107.74.”
Middlebrooks v. Beamon, 2022 Ohio 2886 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “73(C) states that “the executor” is a necessary party to a will- contest action.”
Sheridan v. Harbison, 655 N.E.2d 256 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “Sheridan is therefore not a person interested in the November will and is not a party who may contest that will’s validity according to R.C. 2107.73. Reluctantly, we must overrule Sheridan’s second assignment of error.”
In re Est. of Carte v. Bringardner, 2023 Ohio 4286 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “Appellant filed a memorandum contra, 2 Although not specifically alleged in the complaint, it appears that Yost was named as a defendant pursuant to R.C. 2107.73. 3 Appellees noted the Administration No.”
Alexander v. Alexander, 2025 Ohio 41 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “{¶22} Perrymond was named as an heir in Amos’s will and, therefore, is a necessary party as listed in R.C. 2107.73. Perrymond is either Amos’s heir, as he declared in his will, or an interested party, simply because he names her in the will.”
Fifth Third Bank v. Fifth Third Bank, 602 N.E.2d 325 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “Finally, they contend that the doctrine of laches does not bar their challenge to the settlement agreement over three decades from the date it received court approval.”
Lehmann v. Westhoeffer, 2021 Ohio 529 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “On February 9, 2018, Westhoefer moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with R.C. 2107.73, describing necessary parties to a will contest.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.73(A) — 2 cases
In re Est. of Taylor, 2024 Ohio 1496 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “First, Michael never sought to amend the pleading to add parties that are necessary in will contests under R.C. 2107.73. This is not a jurisdictional defect but is grounds for dismissing an action.”
Weaver v. Donnerberg, 498 N.E.2d 496 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985). “71, but in this action neither church was named as a party defendant nor was the named executor named in his representative capacity in the caption as required by R.C. 2107.73. Subsequently, on May 31,1984, both Miriam E.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.73(B) — 2 cases
Birman v. Sproat, 546 N.E.2d 1354 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). “” In her first assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred to her detriment when it sustained the motions for summary judgment on the issue of testamentary capacity. See, also, R.C. 2107.74.”
Alexander v. Alexander, 2025 Ohio 41 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “{¶22} Perrymond was named as an heir in Amos’s will and, therefore, is a necessary party as listed in R.C. 2107.73. Perrymond is either Amos’s heir, as he declared in his will, or an interested party, simply because he names her in the will.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.73(C) — 1 case
Middlebrooks v. Beamon, 2022 Ohio 2886 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “73(C) states that “the executor” is a necessary party to a will- contest 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.