Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2109
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2109.35 (2026)

Effect of order settling account - vacation of order

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 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
 

The order of the probate court upon the settlement of a fiduciary's account shall have the effect of a judgment and may be vacated only as follows:

(A) The order may be vacated for fraud, upon motion of any person affected by the order or upon the court's own order, if the motion is filed or order is made within one year after discovery of the existence of the fraud. Any person who is subject to any legal disability may file the motion at any time within one year after the removal of the legal disability or within one year after the person discovers the existence of the fraud, whichever is later, or the person's guardian or a successor guardian may do so during the period of the legal disability. If the death of any person occurs during the period within which the person could have filed the motion, the person's administrator or executor may file it within one year after the person's death.

(B) The order may be vacated for good cause shown, other than fraud, upon motion of any person affected by the order who was not a party to the proceeding in which the order was made and who had no knowledge of the proceeding in time to appear in it; provided that, if the account settled by the order is included and specified in the notice to that person of the proceeding in which a subsequent account is settled, the right of that person to vacate the order shall terminate upon the settlement of the subsequent account. A person affected by an order settling an account shall be considered to have been a party to the proceeding in which the order was made if that person was served with notice of the hearing on the account in accordance with section 2109.33 of the Revised Code, waived that notice, consented to the approval of the account, filed exceptions to the account, or is bound by section 2109.34 of the Revised Code; but no person in being who is under legal disability at the time of that proceeding shall be considered to have been a party to that proceeding unless the person was represented in it as provided in section 2111.23 of the Revised Code. Neither the fiduciary nor the fiduciary's surety shall incur any liability as a result of the vacation of an order settling an account in accordance with this division, if the motion to vacate the order is filed more than three years following the settlement of the fiduciary's account showing complete distribution of assets; but the three-year period shall not affect the liability of any heir, devisee, or distributee either before or after the expiration of that period.

(C) The order may be vacated for good cause shown upon motion of the fiduciary, if the motion is filed prior to the settlement of the account showing that the fiduciary has fully discharged his trust.

A motion to vacate an order settling an account shall set forth the items of the account with respect to which complaint is made and the reasons for complaining of those items. The person filing a motion to vacate an order settling an account or another person the court may designate shall cause notice of the hearing on the motion to be served upon all interested parties who may be adversely affected by an order of the court granting the motion.

An order settling an account shall not be vacated unless the court determines that there is good cause for doing so, and the burden of proving good cause shall be upon the complaining party.

The vacation of an order settling an account, made after notice given in the manner provided in section 2109.33 of the Revised Code, shall not affect the rights of a purchaser for value in good faith, a lessee for value in good faith, or an encumbrancer for value in good faith; provided that, if the fiduciary has effected any such sale, lease, or encumbrance, any person prejudiced by it may proceed, after vacation of the order, against any distributee benefiting from the sale, lease, or encumbrance to the extent of the amount received by that distributee on distribution of the estate or trust, or if any heir, devisee, or distributee has effected any such sale, lease, or encumbrance, any person prejudiced by it may proceed, after the vacation of the order, against that heir, devisee, or distributee, to the extent of the value at the time of alienation of the property aliened by the person, with legal interest.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: In re Est. of Faldon, 2016-Ohio-7337.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Est. of Faldon, 2016-Ohio-7337. · cites it 3× “” It follows, “[a] person affected by an order settling an account shall be considered to have been a party to the proceeding in which the order was made if that person was served with notice of the hearing on the account in accordance with section 2109.”
In re Est. of Cullen, 692 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1997). · cites it 8× “R.C. 2109.35 provided as follows: *260 “The order of the probate court upon the settlement of a fiduciary's account shall have the effect of a judgment and may be vacated only as follows: "(C) Such order may be vacated for good cause shown * * * upon motion of any person…”
Mathe v. Fowler, 469 N.E.2d 89 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1983). · cites it 5× “Upon the issue of fraud, R.C. 2109.35 (A), which provides that the settlement *275 order of the probate court may be vacated upon the motion of any person affected thereby, is based upon fraud.”
Whitaker v. Kear, 704 N.E.2d 317 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1997). · cites it 2× “Finally, Metcalfe testified that Allyn and Spetnagel should have raised the R.C. 2109.35(C) statute of limitations to defend Whitaker in Reed’s action for surcharges.”
Dipaolo v. Devictor, 555 N.E.2d 969 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1988). · cites it 2× “were a part of the estate has been previously ruled upon by the Probate Court of Franklin County and no exceptions were taken to the final account, nor was any relief under Rule 60(B) ever requested, nor was any relief for fraud requested under R.C. 2109.35, alleging fraud to…”
Ollick v. Rice, 476 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1984). · cites it 2× “R.C. 2109.35 governs the manner in which an order settling an account may be vacated.”
In re Est. of Sowande, 2014-Ohio-5384. · cites it 7× “The motion was filed under R.C. 2109.35(A), and was essentially a motion to vacate the order settling the fiduciary account filed in the estate.”
Est. of Welch v. Taylor, 2020-Ohio-6909. · cites it 4× “{¶10} In addition, to ruling that the action was time barred, the trial court also found: Plaintiffs' claim must fail pursuant to R.C. 2109.35 which specified that an order of the probate court upon the settlement of a fiduciary's account shall have the effect of a judgment and…”
Stevens v. Nat'l City Bank, 544 N.E.2d 612 (Ohio 1989). “Presiding Judge Pryatel, in his dissenting opinion below, observes, in hindsight, that the trustee’s diversification program minimized the adverse effect on the value of the trust corpus following the disastrous toxic gas leak at a Union Carbide facility in Bhopal, India, in…”
In re Est. of Keeler, 676 N.E.2d 1220 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1996). · cites it 9× “Appellant argues that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in vacating the settlement order because appellee failed to demonstrate good cause for purposes of R.C. 2109.35(C). When appellee moved to vacate the settlement order, R.”
In re Est. of Moritz v. Ohio State Univ., 2020-Ohio-5012. · cites it 3× “19 CAF 11 0060 8 apply the correct legal standard for good cause and Appellant satisfied the correct legal standard. {¶12} An order of the probate court approving and settling a fiduciary's final account has the effect of a final judgment, which can only be vacated under the…”
In re Guardianship of McPheter, 642 N.E.2d 690 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1994). · cites it 3× “Appellant argues further that appellee did not show the good cause required by R.C. 2109.35 for a judgment upon the settlement of a fiduciary’s account to be vacated by the probate court.”
Show all 45 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 2109.35(A): 8 cases
In re Est. of Sowande, 2014-Ohio-5384. “The motion was filed under R.C. 2109.35(A), and was essentially a motion to vacate the order settling the fiduciary account filed in the estate.”
Mathe v. Fowler, 469 N.E.2d 89 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1983). “Upon the issue of fraud, R.C. 2109.35 (A), which provides that the settlement *275 order of the probate court may be vacated upon the motion of any person affected thereby, is based upon fraud.”
In re Est. of Cullen, 692 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1997). “R.C. 2109.35 provided as follows: *260 “The order of the probate court upon the settlement of a fiduciary's account shall have the effect of a judgment and may be vacated only as follows: "(C) Such order may be vacated for good cause shown * * * upon motion of any person…”
In re West, 2017-Ohio-7128.
PNC Bank v. Roy, 788 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2003).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2109.35(B): 7 cases
In re Est. of Faldon, 2016-Ohio-7337. “” It follows, “[a] person affected by an order settling an account shall be considered to have been a party to the proceeding in which the order was made if that person was served with notice of the hearing on the account in accordance with section 2109.”
In re the Est. of Rife, 2014-Ohio-3644.
In re Est. of Sudman, 2023-Ohio-4356, 231 N.E.3d 71.
In re Est. of Rogers, 2026-Ohio-2054.
In re Est. of Crain, 2023-Ohio-571, 209 N.E.3d 794.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2109.35(C): 8 cases
Whitaker v. Kear, 704 N.E.2d 317 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1997). “Finally, Metcalfe testified that Allyn and Spetnagel should have raised the R.C. 2109.35(C) statute of limitations to defend Whitaker in Reed’s action for surcharges.”
In re Est. of Cullen, 692 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1997). “R.C. 2109.35 provided as follows: *260 “The order of the probate court upon the settlement of a fiduciary's account shall have the effect of a judgment and may be vacated only as follows: "(C) Such order may be vacated for good cause shown * * * upon motion of any person…”
Mathe v. Fowler, 469 N.E.2d 89 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1983). “Upon the issue of fraud, R.C. 2109.35 (A), which provides that the settlement *275 order of the probate court may be vacated upon the motion of any person affected thereby, is based upon fraud.”
In re Est. of Keeler, 676 N.E.2d 1220 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1996). “Appellant argues that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in vacating the settlement order because appellee failed to demonstrate good cause for purposes of R.C. 2109.35(C). When appellee moved to vacate the settlement order, R.”
In re Guardianship of McPheter, 642 N.E.2d 690 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1994). “Appellant argues further that appellee did not show the good cause required by R.C. 2109.35 for a judgment upon the settlement of a fiduciary’s account to be vacated by the probate court.”
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.