花都影视

Widdig v. Watkins, 4th Dist. No. 13-CA-3531, 2013 WL 4792544 (Aug. 22, 2013). The general division of the common pleas court dismissed a claim for intentional interference with expectancy of an inheritance claim because it held that the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. The court of appeals reversed, however, recognizing that the plaintiff had brought her claims in an individual capacity, which was not outside the general division's jurisdiction. The court relied on its holding in Grimes v. Grimes, 173 Ohio App.3d 537, 544, 2007-Ohio-5653 (4th Dist.). In that case, the 4th District held that when an administrator of an estate questions the validity of certain inter vivos transfers that involve property that would revert to the estate if the transfers are found invalid, the action is related to the administration of the estate and is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Probate Court. While the plaintiff filed her complaint in the general division as both the fiduciary of the estate and as an individual, the court found that her individual claims were not outside the general division's jurisdiction under Grimes. Additionally, it held the probate division had no jurisdiction over her claims for money damages arising from fraud. Therefore, the court held the trial court's Civ.R. 12(B)(1) dismissal constituted error.