Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2109.53 (2026)

Judgment against fiduciary - removal

✓ 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

If a judgment is rendered against a fiduciary under section 2109.52 of the Revised Code, the fiduciary shall be removed by the probate court. If any portion of the estate, testamentary trust, or guardianship remains to be administered by the probate court at the time of the removal of the fiduciary, the court shall appoint a new fiduciary to continue the administrative process. A fiduciary that is removed shall not receive compensation for acting as fiduciary and shall be charged for the amount of the judgment. The fiduciary's property also shall be liable for the satisfaction of the judgment on execution issued on the judgment by the fiduciary's successor.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: In re Est. of Clapsaddle, 607 N.E.2d 1148 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re Est. of Clapsaddle, 607 N.E.2d 1148 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1992). · cites it 7× “50 complaint is a necessary prerequisite to rendering a money judgment under R.C. 2109.53. In re Estate of Howard, supra.”

In re Durkin, 2018-Ohio-2283. · cites it 2× “52 (JUDG[]MENT ON THE COMPLAINT”), R.C. 2109.53 (JUDGMENT AGAINST FIDUCIARY—REMOVAL[)], [R.”

In re Est. of von Meyer, 2017-Ohio-5839. · cites it 3× “Dane as the executor under Revised Code Sections 2109.53 (“Judgment against fiduciary – removal.”

Alibrando v. Miner, 2021-Ohio-2827. “50, REMOVAL AS EXECUTOR PURSUANT TO ORC 2109.53 AND JUDGMENT AGAINST HER FOR THE AMOUNTS CONCEALED OR EMBEZZLED, WITH THE MANDATORY 10% PENALTY AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES.”

In re Est. of Alibrando v. Minor, 2026-Ohio-133. “52, R.C. 2109.53, and R.C. 2109.54). {¶86} Matthew and Vincent contend the trial court improperly held that they were required to demonstrate fraud and/or undue influence in order to find Miner guilty of concealment.”

In re Est. of Kinder, 714 N.E.2d 964 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1998). “R.C. 2109.53 requires a court to remove a fiduciary after a judgment has been rendered against him for concealment or embezzlement of estate assets.”

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.