On the trial of any will contest under section 2107.71 of the Revised Code, the order of probate is prima-facie evidence of the attestation, execution, and validity of the will or codicil. The contesting party may call any witness to the will as upon cross examination.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Krischbaum v. Dillon, 567 N.E.2d 1291 (Ohio 1991).
Krischbaum v. Dillon, 567 N.E.2d 1291 (Ohio 1991). · cites it 5דDillon also contends that a presumption of undue influence is contrary to the Ohio statutory presumption of the validity of a will that has been admitted to probate, contained in R.C. 2107.74. 8 R.C. 2107.74 provides that the order admitting a will to probate is prima facie…”
Zimpfer v. Roach, 2017 Ohio 8437 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2דSection 2107.74 of the Revised Code creates a presumption of the validity of a will, and included in this presumption is that the testator was of sound mind and possessed testamentary capacity to execute the will.”
Young v. Kaufman, 2017 Ohio 9015 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “2d 1291 (1991) ; R.C. 2107.74. The burden of proving undue influence is on the party challenging the will.”
Birman v. Sproat, 546 N.E.2d 1354 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2דSee, also, R.C. 2107.74. Appellees contend that the trial court erred in determining that Constance Birman had standing to bring this will contest action because she was not a “necessary party” as defined in R.”
Smith v. Gold-Kaplan, 2014 Ohio 1424 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “{¶30} In granting summary judgment to Esther on the issue of testamentary capacity, the trial court reasoned: The court finds that even if Mr.”
Gannett v. Booher, 465 N.E.2d 1326 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). “The judgment of the Probate Court of Huron County that the instrument dated March 1, 1978, and admitted to probate in that court on June 9,1981, is not the last will and testament of Thomas Norman Gannett is against the weight of the evidence and should be reversed as a matter…”
Sigler v. Burk, 2017 Ohio 5486 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “3-16-19 Testamentary Capacity {¶7} An order admitting a will to probate is prima facie evidence of its validity pursuant to R.C. 2107.74; however, an otherwise valid will may be invalidated if the testator lacked testamentary capacity at the time the will was executed.”
Est. of Snell v. Kilburn, 846 N.E.2d 572 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “R.C. 2107.74. With regards to prima facie evidence, the Ohio Supreme Court has stated that “prima facie evidence is not conclusive.”
Stanek v. Stanek, 2019 Ohio 2841 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “” R.C. 2107.74. “ ‘Prima facie evidence’ is not conclusive.”
Kryder v. Kryder, 2012 Ohio 2280 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “45, substantively similar language currently set forth in R.C. 2107.74). 11 {¶30} The Ohio Supreme Court has stated that “undue influence to avoid a will, must so overpower and subjugate the mind of the testator as to destroy his free agency and make him express the will of…”
Doyle v. Schott, 582 N.E.2d 1057 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “The order admitting a will to probate is prima facie evidence of its validity as provided in R.C. 2107.74. See Hane v. Kintner (1924), 111 Ohio St.”
Young v. Bellamy, 2017 Ohio 2994 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “R.C. 2107.74 creates a presumption of the validity of a will, and included in this presumption is that the testator was of sound mind and possessed testamentary capacity to execute the will.”
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.