(A) Administration of the estate of an intestate shall be granted to persons mentioned in this division, in the following order:
(1) To the surviving spouse of the deceased, if resident of the state;
(2) To one of the next of kin of the deceased, resident of the state.
(B) If the persons entitled to administer the estate under division (A) of this section fail to take or renounce administration voluntarily, the matter shall be set for hearing and notice given to the persons.
(C) If there are no persons entitled to administration, if they are for any reason unsuitable for the discharge of the trust, or if without sufficient cause they neglect to apply within a reasonable time for the administration of the estate, their right to priority shall be lost, and the court shall commit the administration to some suitable person who is a resident of the state, or to the attorney general or the attorney general's designee, if the department of medicaid is seeking to recover the costs of medicaid services from the deceased pursuant to section 5162.21 or 5162.211 of the Revised Code. The person granted administration may be a creditor of the estate.
(D) This section applies to the appointment of an administrator de bonis non.
Embassy Healthcare v. Bell (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4912 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 6ד{¶ 39} According to the majority’s new rule, when an estate has not been opened, a creditor who wishes to pursue a necessaries claim must undertake the burden of having an estate opened under R.C. 2113.06, even when the decedent left no assets and when the opening of an estate…”
Taneff v. Lipka, 2019 Ohio 887 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2ד) The probate court, acting through its magistrate Kelly Green, erred by denying the heirs an evidentiary hearing and the right to cross-examine their adversary's witnesses, before arbitrarily depriving Attorney Cramer of her statutory priority for appointment, under O.R.C. §…”
In Re Est. of Shepherd, 646 N.E.2d 561 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6דOn December 31, 1992, the guardian ad litem, moved to revoke the letters of administration issued by the trial court, contending that appellant was not the common-law wife of the decedent, and therefore could not serve as administrator under R.C. 2113.06. 1 During June 1993, the…”
In re Est. of Jenkins, 2019 Ohio 2112 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5דR.C. 2113.06 establishes an order of priority a probate court must follow in appointing an administrator.”
In re Est. of Parks, 2024 Ohio 1841 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 9דR.C. 2113.06; R.C. 2113.15; R.C. 2113.16; R.”
Saber Healthcare v. Hudgins, 2020 Ohio 5603 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6ד{¶9} Regarding Saber Healthcare’s argument that it had no obligation to open the estate itself, its argument is not supported by Section 2113.06, nor the case law interpreting the statute.”
In Re Est. of Rice, 832 N.E.2d 139 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4דAppellant argues in his third assignment of error that the trial court erred in appointing an executor because it failed to comply with R.C. 2113.06. {¶ 14} This court’s resolution of the appellant’s first assignment of error renders appellant’s second and third assignments of…”
Classic Healthcare Sys., L.L.C. v. Miracle, 2017 Ohio 8540 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “R.C. 2113.06(C); R.C. 2117.06. Franklin could have then pursued an action against Faun's other creditors who received preferential treatment because of - 11 - Warren CA2017-03-029 David's management of Faun's asset.”
Hunzicker v. Micklethwaite, 144 N.E.2d 130 (Ohio Ct. App. 1956). · cites it 4דThe question presented is whether the appellant is a “next of kin” within the meaning of Section 10509-3, General Code (Section 2113.06, Revised Code), the provisions of which are mandatory.”
In Re Est. of Roch, 610 N.E.2d 524 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2דDebra refers to R.C. 2113.06, which establishes the priority of persons entitled to administer an estate and gives first priority to the surviving spouse of the decedent.”
In Re Est. of Young, 212 N.E.2d 612 (Ohio Ct. App. 1964). · cites it 2דSection 2113.06, Revised Code. In our opinion, Section 2113.”
In Re Est. of Shepherd, 646 N.E.2d 561 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). “On December 31, 1992, the guardian ad litem, moved to revoke the letters of administration issued by the trial court, contending that appellant was not the common-law wife of the decedent, and therefore could not serve as administrator under R.C. 2113.06. 1 During June 1993, the…”
In re Est. of Jenkins, 2019 Ohio 2112 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “R.C. 2113.06 establishes an order of priority a probate court must follow in appointing an administrator.”
In re Est. of Parks, 2024 Ohio 1841 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “R.C. 2113.06; R.C. 2113.15; R.C. 2113.16; R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2113.06(A)(2) — 3 cases
Taneff v. Lipka, 2019 Ohio 887 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “) The probate court, acting through its magistrate Kelly Green, erred by denying the heirs an evidentiary hearing and the right to cross-examine their adversary's witnesses, before arbitrarily depriving Attorney Cramer of her statutory priority for appointment, under O.R.C. §…”
In Re Est. of Shepherd, 646 N.E.2d 561 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). “On December 31, 1992, the guardian ad litem, moved to revoke the letters of administration issued by the trial court, contending that appellant was not the common-law wife of the decedent, and therefore could not serve as administrator under R.C. 2113.06. 1 During June 1993, the…”
Embassy Healthcare v. Bell (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4912 (Ohio 2018). “{¶ 39} According to the majority’s new rule, when an estate has not been opened, a creditor who wishes to pursue a necessaries claim must undertake the burden of having an estate opened under R.C. 2113.06, even when the decedent left no assets and when the opening of an estate…”
Classic Healthcare Sys., L.L.C. v. Miracle, 2017 Ohio 8540 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “R.C. 2113.06(C); R.C. 2117.06. Franklin could have then pursued an action against Faun's other creditors who received preferential treatment because of - 11 - Warren CA2017-03-029 David's management of Faun's asset.”
In re Est. of Jenkins, 2019 Ohio 2112 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “R.C. 2113.06 establishes an order of priority a probate court must follow in appointing an administrator.”
Saber Healthcare v. Hudgins, 2020 Ohio 5603 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “{¶9} Regarding Saber Healthcare’s argument that it had no obligation to open the estate itself, its argument is not supported by Section 2113.06, nor the case law interpreting the statute.”
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.