Remainders, whether vested or contingent, executory interests, and other expectant estates are descendible, devisable, and alienable in the same manner as estates in possession.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: Domo v. McCarthy, 612 N.E.2d 706 (Ohio 1993).
Domo v. McCarthy, 612 N.E.2d 706 (Ohio 1993). · cites it 4ד2d 349 ; R.C. 2131.04. Thus, the interest of the beneficiary upon termination of the trust can be subjected to a court order requiring the trustees to apply to appellee’s judgment ‘any property, money or disbursements from corpus or income which become payable to or for the…”
Aetna Life Ins. v. Hussey, 590 N.E.2d 724 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 2דMoreover, where a separate agreement embodied in a divorce decree states a specific purpose for mandated life insurance coverage, the insured party or policy owner has a contingent right to dispose of any proceeds not used by the beneficiaries in accordance with the agreement’s…”
Kovacs v. Sargent (In Re Sargent), 337 B.R. 661 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2006). · cites it 2דO.R.C. § 2131.04. It is also a well-established practice for a trustee to sell such an interest to satisfy the debts of the remain-derman.”
In Re Greer, 242 B.R. 389 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1999). · cites it 2ד” O.R.C. § 2131.04. In recognition of the potential for a contingent interest to be sold and also attached by creditors, bankruptcy courts, in interpreting Ohio law, have allowed debtors to claim exemptions in contingent interest.”
Scott v. Bank One Trust Co., 577 N.E.2d 1077 (Ohio 1991). “If the trust is enforced according to its terms, attachment of McCombe’s future interest would create what the federal bankruptcy court described as “an impasse or ‘Catch 22’ solution.”
Casey v. Gallagher, 227 N.E.2d 801 (Ohio 1967). · cites it 2דCasey, representing the estate of the testator’s grandchild, John P. Gallagher, who did survive testator’s son, Patrick Gallagher.”
Irons v. Maginnis (In re Irons), 572 B.R. 877 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2017). · cites it 2דRemainder interests under Ohio law, O.R.C. § 2131.04, are fully alienable, whether vested or contingent, and it is a well-established practice for a trustee to sell such interests to satisfy the debts of the remainderman.”
Stevens v. Radey, 117 Ohio St. 3d 65 (Ohio 2008). “{¶ 12} Although we have never encountered the factual circumstances presented in this case, we addressed a similar issue in Gilpin v.”
P C K Props., Inc. v. City of Cuyahoga Falls, 176 N.E.2d 441 (Ohio Ct. App. 1960). · cites it 2דHowever, such a rule could no longer exist in this state, in view of Section 2131.04, Revised Code, which is as follows: “Remainders, whether vested or contingent, executory interests, and other expectant estates are descendible, devisable and alienable in the same manner as…”
Bobo v. Stansberry, 834 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “Further, even if Miner’s interest was an expectancy, as described by the trial court, R.C. 2131.04 provides that “[rjemainders, whether vested or contingent, executory interests, and other expectant estates are descendible, devisable and alienable in the same manner as estates…”
Curtis v. Edsell, 2024 Ohio 3420 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2דR.C. 2131.04; First Nat’l Bank of Cincinnati v.”
Moore v. Foresman, 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 559 (Ohio 1962). · cites it 4דForesman to the appellant, since Section 2131.04, Revised Code, enacted in 1932, expressly makes estates of all kinds alienable in Ohio.”
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.