Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 5804
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 5804.15 (2026)

Reformation to conform to settlor's intention

✓ 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 1, 2007
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 416 - 126th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

The court may reform the terms of a trust, even if they are unambiguous, to conform the terms to the settlor's intention if it is proved by clear and convincing evidence that both the settlor's intent and the terms of the trust were affected by a mistake of fact or law, whether in expression or inducement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2012–2020 · leading case: Baillis v. Ross, 2012-Ohio-705.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Baillis v. Ross, 2012-Ohio-705. · cites it 3× “Trust Reformation {¶21} Third, the plaintiffs, relying on R.C. 5804.15, argue that they stated a claim for reformation because Donald intended to amend his trust to provide a distribution for them.”
Kryder v. Kryder, 2012-Ohio-2280. · cites it 2× “5 {¶10} In addition, R.C. 5804.15 provides: The court may reform the terms of a trust, even if they are unambiguous, to conform the terms to the settlor’s intention if it is proved by clear and convincing evidence that both the settlor’s intent and the terms of the trust were…”
Kinchen v. A.R. Mays, Etc., 2014-Ohio-3325. · cites it 3× “Mays, as the trustee of the decedent Gilbert Kinchen’s trust (“Trust”), and Gilbert Kinchen’s children, who are the beneficiaries of the family trust portion of the Trust, and denying Kathryn’s motion to amend the complaint to include a claim for reformation of the Trust…”
In re Est. of Zoltanski v. Zoltanski, 2020-Ohio-3908. · cites it 8× “Stephen alleged claims for R.C. 5804.15 reformation of a revocable trust for a 4-unit apartment complex known as “Wood Bird” (Count 1) and to impose a constructive trust due to fraud on the trust that legally owns Wood Bird (Count 2).”
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.