(A) Except for an interim or emergency guardian appointed under division (B)(2) or (3) of section 2111.02 of the Revised Code, no guardian of the person, the estate, or both shall be appointed until at least seven days after the probate court has caused written notice, setting forth the time and place of the hearing, to be served as follows:
(1) In the appointment of the guardian of a minor, notice shall be served as follows:
(a) Upon the minor, if over the age of fourteen, by personal service;
(b) Upon each parent of the minor whose name and address is known or with reasonable diligence can be ascertained, provided the parent is free from disability other than minority;
(c) Upon the next of kin of the minor who are known to reside in this state, if there is no living parent, the name and address of the parent cannot be ascertained, or the parent is under disability other than minority;
(d) Upon the person having the custody of the minor.
(2) In the appointment of the guardian of an incompetent, notice shall be served as follows:
(a)(i) Upon the person for whom appointment is sought by personal service, by a probate court investigator, or in the manner provided in division (A)(2)(a)(ii) of this section. The notice shall be in boldface type and shall inform the alleged incompetent, in boldface type, of the alleged incompetent's rights to be present at the hearing, to contest any application for the appointment of a guardian for the alleged incompetent's person, estate, or both, and to be represented by an attorney and of all of the rights set forth in division (C)(7) of section 2111.02 of the Revised Code.
(ii) If the person for whom appointment is sought is a resident of, or has a legal settlement in, the county in which the court has jurisdiction, but is absent from that county, the probate court may designate, by order, a temporary probate court investigator, in lieu of a regular probate court investigator appointed or designated under section 2101.11 of the Revised Code, to make the personal service of the notice described in division (A)(2)(a)(i) of this section upon the person for whom appointment is sought.
(b) Upon the next of kin of the person for whom appointment is sought who are known to reside in this state.
(B) After service of notice in accordance with division (A) of this section and for good cause shown, the court may appoint a guardian prior to the time limitation specified in that division.
(C) Notice may not be waived by the person for whom the appointment is sought.
(D) From the service of notice until the hearing, no sale, gift, conveyance, or encumbrance of the property of an alleged incompetent shall be valid as to persons having notice of the proceeding.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1954–2025 · leading case: Weinberg v. Weinberg, 2018-Ohio-2862, 117 N.E.3d 907.
Weinberg v. Weinberg, 2018-Ohio-2862, 117 N.E.3d 907. · cites it 10דIn a single assignment of error, Appellant argues that the decision should be reversed because the probate court: (1) granted summary judgment on his first cause of action-a challenge to the validity of a series of four assignments of interest-based on a misapplication of R.C.…”
In re Guardianship of Corless, 440 N.E.2d 1203 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1981). · cites it 5דR.C. 2111.04 provides in part as follows: “No guardian of the person, the estate, or both shall be appointed until at least three days after the probate court has caused written notice, setting forth the time and place of the hearing, to be served upon the following persons: Í…”
Harrison v. Faseyitan, 823 N.E.2d 925 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2004). · cites it 4ד” R.C. 2111.04(D). {¶ 34} This provision pushes back the existence of the “estate” to the date appellant received notice of alleged, incompetency.”
Burns v. Daily, 683 N.E.2d 1164 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1996). · cites it 2דIn its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the probate court indicated that it believed it possessed jurisdiction over the case at bar partially because of the existence of the outstanding freeze-asset order of June 19, 1989.”
In re Guardianship of Reynolds, 144 N.E.2d 501 (Ohio Ct. App. 1956). · cites it 12דDetermination of the question depends upon whether the provisions of Section 2111.04, Revised Code, require notice to be given a nonresident incompetent and, if so, whether the giving of such notice is a jurisdictional requirement.”
CUC Props. VI, L.L.C. v. Smartlink Ventures, Inc., 2021-Ohio-3428, 178 N.E.3d 556. “) (“The issue of whether service was properly perfected pursuant to R.C. 2111.04 involves the probate court’s proper application of law.”
Horn v. Childers, 187 N.E.2d 402 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1959). · cites it 8דWe must quote a portion of Section 2111.04 of the Eevised Code. That portion deemed necessary to a disposition of this case reads as follows: “No guardian of the person, the estate, or both shall be appointed until at least three days after the Probate Court has caused written…”
In re I.T.A., 2012-Ohio-1689. · cites it 4ד19, 1998): “The requirements of R.C. 2111.04 are met if notice is given that the -9- jurisdiction of the court has been invoked on the question of whether or not a guardian should be appointed.”
In re Guardianship of Santrucek, 896 N.E.2d 683 (Ohio 2008). “If appellant had been an Ohio resident, as her mother’s next of kin she would have been entitled to notice of the guardianship proceeding *70 pursuant to R.C. 2111.04(A)(2). But such notice merely apprises relatives of the pendency of the action and does not confer party status…”
In re Guardianship of Swartz, 2011-Ohio-4179, 963 N.E.2d 835. · cites it 10דSpecifically, Dorothy asserts that she had not been a resident of the state of Ohio for any time pertinent to the guardianship matter; that she has been a resident of the state of Florida since March 17, 2009, and intends that Florida be her state of residence; that service has…”
In re Guardianship of Bissmeyer, 550 N.E.2d 210 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1988). · cites it 8דAppellant contends that the notice provision of R.C. 2111.04 is so arbitrary and unreasonable that the presumption is overcome.”
In re Guardianship of Richardson, 875 N.E.2d 129 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2007). · cites it 2ד) R.C. 2111.04(A) therefore requires a finding that either alternative exists when the guardian is appointed.”
In re Guardianship of Richardson, 875 N.E.2d 129 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2007). “) R.C. 2111.04(A) therefore requires a finding that either alternative exists when the guardian is appointed.”
In re Guardianship of Swartz, 2011-Ohio-4179, 963 N.E.2d 835. “Specifically, Dorothy asserts that she had not been a resident of the state of Ohio for any time pertinent to the guardianship matter; that she has been a resident of the state of Florida since March 17, 2009, and intends that Florida be her state of residence; that service has…”
In re I.T.A., 2012-Ohio-1689. “19, 1998): “The requirements of R.C. 2111.04 are met if notice is given that the -9- jurisdiction of the court has been invoked on the question of whether or not a guardian should be appointed.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2111.04(A)(1)(b): 2 cases
In re I.T.A., 2012-Ohio-1689. “19, 1998): “The requirements of R.C. 2111.04 are met if notice is given that the -9- jurisdiction of the court has been invoked on the question of whether or not a guardian should be appointed.”
In re Guardianship of Santrucek, 896 N.E.2d 683 (Ohio 2008). “If appellant had been an Ohio resident, as her mother’s next of kin she would have been entitled to notice of the guardianship proceeding *70 pursuant to R.C. 2111.04(A)(2). But such notice merely apprises relatives of the pendency of the action and does not confer party status…”
In re Guardianship of Swartz, 2011-Ohio-4179, 963 N.E.2d 835. “Specifically, Dorothy asserts that she had not been a resident of the state of Ohio for any time pertinent to the guardianship matter; that she has been a resident of the state of Florida since March 17, 2009, and intends that Florida be her state of residence; that service has…”
In re Guardianship of Richardson, 875 N.E.2d 129 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2007). “) R.C. 2111.04(A) therefore requires a finding that either alternative exists when the guardian is appointed.”
Horn v. Childers, 187 N.E.2d 402 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1959). “We must quote a portion of Section 2111.04 of the Eevised Code. That portion deemed necessary to a disposition of this case reads as follows: “No guardian of the person, the estate, or both shall be appointed until at least three days after the Probate Court has caused written…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2111.04(B)(1): 3 cases
In re Guardianship of Corless, 440 N.E.2d 1203 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1981). “R.C. 2111.04 provides in part as follows: “No guardian of the person, the estate, or both shall be appointed until at least three days after the probate court has caused written notice, setting forth the time and place of the hearing, to be served upon the following persons: Í…”
In re Guardianship of Swartz, 2011-Ohio-4179, 963 N.E.2d 835. “Specifically, Dorothy asserts that she had not been a resident of the state of Ohio for any time pertinent to the guardianship matter; that she has been a resident of the state of Florida since March 17, 2009, and intends that Florida be her state of residence; that service has…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2111.04(B)(2): 1 case
In re Guardianship of Bissmeyer, 550 N.E.2d 210 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1988). “Appellant contends that the notice provision of R.C. 2111.04 is so arbitrary and unreasonable that the presumption is overcome.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2111.04(C): 1 case
In re Guardianship of Swartz, 2011-Ohio-4179, 963 N.E.2d 835. “Specifically, Dorothy asserts that she had not been a resident of the state of Ohio for any time pertinent to the guardianship matter; that she has been a resident of the state of Florida since March 17, 2009, and intends that Florida be her state of residence; that service has…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2111.04(D): 4 cases
Weinberg v. Weinberg, 2018-Ohio-2862, 117 N.E.3d 907. “In a single assignment of error, Appellant argues that the decision should be reversed because the probate court: (1) granted summary judgment on his first cause of action-a challenge to the validity of a series of four assignments of interest-based on a misapplication of R.C.…”
Harrison v. Faseyitan, 823 N.E.2d 925 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2004). “” R.C. 2111.04(D). {¶ 34} This provision pushes back the existence of the “estate” to the date appellant received notice of alleged, incompetency.”
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.