Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2109
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2109.50 (2026)

Proceedings when assets concealed or embezzled

✓ 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
 

Upon complaint made to the probate court of the county having jurisdiction of the administration of an estate, a testamentary trust, or a guardianship or of the county where a person resides against whom the complaint is made, by a person interested in the estate, testamentary trust, or guardianship or by the creditor of a person interested in the estate, testamentary trust, or guardianship against any person suspected of having concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away or of being or having been in the possession of any moneys, personal property, or choses in action of the estate, testamentary trust, or guardianship, the court shall by citation or other judicial order compel the person or persons suspected to appear before it to be examined, on oath, touching the matter of the complaint. If necessary, the citation or other judicial order may be issued into any county in the state and shall be served and returned by the officer to whom it is delivered. The officer to whom the process is delivered shall be liable for negligence in its service or return in a similar manner as sheriffs are liable for negligence in not serving or returning a capias issued upon an indictment. Before issuing an extra-county citation or other judicial order, the probate judge may require the complainant to post security with the probate court in an amount and in a form that the probate judge finds acceptable in order to cover the costs of the proceeding under this section, including in those costs a reasonable allowance for the travel expenses of the person or persons against whom an extra-county citation or other judicial order is to be issued. The security may be in the form of a bond, the amount, terms, conditions, and sureties of which shall be subject to the approval of the probate judge.

The probate court may initiate proceedings on its own motion.

The probate court shall promptly proceed to hear and determine the matter.

The examinations, including questions and answers, shall be reduced to writing, signed by the party examined, and filed in the probate court.

If required by either party, the probate court shall swear the witnesses who are offered by either party touching the matter of the complaint and cause the examination of every witness, including questions and answers, to be reduced to writing, signed by the witness, and filed in the probate court.

All costs of the proceedings, including the reasonable travel expenses of a person against whom an extra-county citation or judicial order is issued, shall be assessed against and paid by the party making the complaint, except as provided by section 2109.52 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 106 cases (29 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Wozniak v. Wozniak, 629 N.E.2d 500 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wozniak v. Wozniak, 629 N.E.2d 500 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 27× “Joseph Wozniak, brother of the appellant, brought this action in December 1990 under R.C. 2109.50 et seq., claiming that Thomas Wozniak was wrongfully in possession of assets from their mother’s estate.”
State ex rel. Goldberg v. Mahoning Cnty. Prob. Court, 753 N.E.2d 192 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 20× “Judge Maloney initiated concealment proceedings pursuant to R.C. 2109.50 et seq. Judge Maloney found that attorney Goldberg had deposited in his own “trustee” checking account settlement checks intended for beneficiaries of numerous estates without the knowledge, consent, or…”
In Re Est. of Popp, 641 N.E.2d 739 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 27× “The Probate Court erred in denying OSB’s Motion to Dismiss and/or For Summary Judgment because: (1) it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over an O.R.C. § 2109.50 complaint against a financial institution when the complaint was based on withdrawal of funds pursuant to forged…”
Goldberg v. Maloney, 855 N.E.2d 856 (Ohio 2006). · cites it 21× “{¶ 1} This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment granting a writ of prohibition to prevent a probate judge from proceeding in a concealment action instituted under R.C. 2109.50. Because the probate judge does not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to proceed in…”
Rinehart v. Bank One, Columbus, N.A., 709 N.E.2d 559 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 34× “) The plaintiffs sought recovery of amounts “wrongfully conveyed” by the banks pursuant to R.C. 2109.50 et seq., which provides a special statutory mechanism for recovery of concealed or wrongfully conveyed estate assets.”
Lance v. Boldman, 2018 Ohio 44 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 17× “"The above case law indicates that in proceedings brought pursuant to R.C. 2109.50, testimony of the decedent is considered hearsay and does not fall within the hearsay exceptions set forth in Evid.”
Pirock v. Crain, 2020 Ohio 869 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 14× “Specifically, the plaintiffs filed a concealment action under R.C. 2109.50 alleging Frederick and Bryan converted or concealed assets belonging to Ralph’s estate, including six strongboxes each allegedly containing $130,000 in cash and six white canvas bags each allegedly…”
In re Est. of Beatley v. Fisher, 2024 Ohio 5109 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 28× “On September 8, 2020, appellant filed an action for concealment of assets pursuant to R.C. 2109.50 through 2109.56 against appellee, Brad’s No.”
Mancz v. McHenry, 2012 Ohio 3285 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 22× “{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Callista McHenry appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, finding her guilty - pursuant to R.C. 2109.50 - of concealing, embezzling and conveying assets of the estate of Audrey Kirby.”
State v. Harmon, 2017 Ohio 320 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 14× “{¶13} R.C. 2109.50 provides that the court or any interested party may file a proceeding in the probate court against any person alleged to have concealed, embezzled, conveyed away or in possession of monies or assets of an estate.”
In re Est. of Ohman, 2023 Ohio 4008 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 38× “12 and R.C. 2109.50. For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms the judgment of the trial court.”
Est. of DeChellis v. DeChellis, 2019 Ohio 3078 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 14× “DeChellis, filed a R.C. 2109.50 concealment of assets action in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division against Respondents-Appellants Patty and Daniel.”
Show all 106 citing cases →
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.