(A)(1) The amount received by a personal representative in an action for wrongful death under sections 2125.01 and 2125.02 of the Revised Code, whether by settlement or otherwise, shall be distributed to the beneficiaries or any one or more of them. The court that appointed the personal representative, except when all of the beneficiaries are on an equal degree of consanguinity to the deceased person, shall adjust the share of each beneficiary in a manner that is equitable, having due regard for the injury and loss to each beneficiary resulting from the death and for the age and condition of the beneficiaries. If all of the beneficiaries are on an equal degree of consanguinity to the deceased person, the beneficiaries may adjust the share of each beneficiary among themselves. If the beneficiaries do not adjust their shares among themselves, the court shall adjust the share of each beneficiary in the same manner as the court adjusts the shares of beneficiaries who are not on an equal degree of consanguinity to the deceased person.
(2) The court may create a trust for any beneficiary who is under twenty-five years of age by ordering that the portion of the amount received by the personal representative for that beneficiary be deposited in trust for the benefit of that beneficiary, until the beneficiary reaches twenty-five years of age, and order the distribution of the amount in accordance with the provisions of the trust. Prior to appointment as a trustee of a trust created pursuant to this section, the person to be appointed shall be approved by each adult beneficiary and by the guardian of each minor beneficiary of the trust.
(3) The personal representative shall not distribute any amount received in an action for wrongful death under sections 2125.01 and 2125.02 of the Revised Code to any person in relation to whom the court has entered an order pursuant to division (G)(2) of section 2125.02 of the Revised Code.
(B) The court shall distribute the amount of funeral and burial expenses awarded, or received by settlement, by reason of the death to the personal representative of the decedent, to be expended by the personal representative for the payment, or as reimbursement for the payment, of the expenses.
Last updated January 26, 2023 at 11:32 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: In re Molitor, 2013-Ohio-525.
In re Molitor, 2013-Ohio-525. · cites it 14ד06 INSTEAD OF USING THE EQUITABLE FACTORS SPECIFIED BY R.C. 2125.03. {¶ 13} In their first assignment of error, appellants contend that the probate court erred, as a matter of law, in applying R.”
Holt v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 683 N.E.2d 1080 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 5ד” Distribution of wrongful death proceeds is governed by R.C. 2125.03. R.C. 2125.03(A)(1) provides: “The amount received by a personal representative in an action for wrongful death under sections 2125.”
McMullen v. Ohio State Univ. Hospitals, 725 N.E.2d 1117 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 4דR.C. 2125.03(A)(1). In that case, “[t]he court that appointed the personal representative * * * shall adjust the share of each beneficially in a manner that is equitable, having due regard for the injury and loss to each beneficiary resulting from the death and for the age and…”
Spivey v. Bender, 601 N.E.2d 56 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1991). · cites it 3ד01 through R.C. 2125.03 provides the exclusive means for recovery and distribution of wrongful death proceeds.”
In Re Est. of Craig, 623 N.E.2d 620 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1993). · cites it 6ד” R.C. 2125.03(A) requires the court to adjust the share of each beneficiary of a wrongful, death settlement “in such manner as is equitable.”
Buckman-Peirson v. Brannon, 822 N.E.2d 830 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2004). · cites it 2ד{¶ 13} But Brannon argues, and the trial court agreed, that under R.C. 2125.03(A) and this court’s decision in Comer v.”
In re Est. of John C., 2017-Ohio-8648. · cites it 14ד{¶ 17} R.C. 2125.03 governs the distribution of proceeds from a wrongful death action brought pursuant to R.”
In Re Est. of Marinelli, 650 N.E.2d 935 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1994). · cites it 4דC. 2125.02. This statute authorizes the wrongful death action to be commenced in the general division of the court of common pleas and establishes the parameters of the action.”
Peters v. Columbus Steel Castings Co., 873 N.E.2d 1258 (Ohio 2007). “See R.C. 2125.03. {¶ 11} Thus, when an individual is killed by the wrongful act of another, the personal representative of the decedent’s estate may bring a survival action for the decedent’s own injuries leading to his or her death as well as a wrongful-death action for the…”
Ramsey v. Neiman, 634 N.E.2d 211 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 2ד) *511 Former R.C. 2125.03(A) refers to the personal representative as if he or she had been appointed whether or not the case was settled.”
Est. of Shackelford, 2016-Ohio-1431. · cites it 4ד{¶ 16} We note at the outset that although the probate court was required under R.C. 2125.03 to distribute the wrongful death proceeds of the settlement agreement to the statutory beneficiaries of Shackelford, it did not do so and in fact, gave no consideration to the value of…”
Van Der Veer v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 680 N.E.2d 230 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1996). · cites it 2דThe court that appointed the persoiml representative shall, except when all of the beneficiaries are on an equal degree of consanguinity to the deceased person, adjust the share of each beneficiary in such manner as is equitable, having due regard for the injury and loss to each…”
Buckman-Peirson v. Brannon, 822 N.E.2d 830 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2004). “{¶ 13} But Brannon argues, and the trial court agreed, that under R.C. 2125.03(A) and this court’s decision in Comer v.”
Ramsey v. Neiman, 634 N.E.2d 211 (Ohio 1994). “) *511 Former R.C. 2125.03(A) refers to the personal representative as if he or she had been appointed whether or not the case was settled.”
Spivey v. Bender, 601 N.E.2d 56 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1991). “01 through R.C. 2125.03 provides the exclusive means for recovery and distribution of wrongful death proceeds.”
In Re Est. of Craig, 623 N.E.2d 620 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1993). “” R.C. 2125.03(A) requires the court to adjust the share of each beneficiary of a wrongful, death settlement “in such manner as is equitable.”
In re Molitor, 2013-Ohio-525. “06 INSTEAD OF USING THE EQUITABLE FACTORS SPECIFIED BY R.C. 2125.03. {¶ 13} In their first assignment of error, appellants contend that the probate court erred, as a matter of law, in applying R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2125.03(A)(1): 21 cases
McMullen v. Ohio State Univ. Hospitals, 725 N.E.2d 1117 (Ohio 2000). “R.C. 2125.03(A)(1). In that case, “[t]he court that appointed the personal representative * * * shall adjust the share of each beneficially in a manner that is equitable, having due regard for the injury and loss to each beneficiary resulting from the death and for the age and…”
Holt v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 683 N.E.2d 1080 (Ohio 1997). “” Distribution of wrongful death proceeds is governed by R.C. 2125.03. R.C. 2125.03(A)(1) provides: “The amount received by a personal representative in an action for wrongful death under sections 2125.”
In re Molitor, 2013-Ohio-525. “06 INSTEAD OF USING THE EQUITABLE FACTORS SPECIFIED BY R.C. 2125.03. {¶ 13} In their first assignment of error, appellants contend that the probate court erred, as a matter of law, in applying R.”
Van Der Veer v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 680 N.E.2d 230 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1996). “The court that appointed the persoiml representative shall, except when all of the beneficiaries are on an equal degree of consanguinity to the deceased person, adjust the share of each beneficiary in such manner as is equitable, having due regard for the injury and loss to each…”
In re Est. of John C., 2017-Ohio-8648. “{¶ 17} R.C. 2125.03 governs the distribution of proceeds from a wrongful death action brought pursuant to R.”
In Re Est. of Craig, 623 N.E.2d 620 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1993). “” R.C. 2125.03(A) requires the court to adjust the share of each beneficiary of a wrongful, death settlement “in such manner as is equitable.”
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.