Stratton v. MacLean
Stratton v. MacLean
Opinion of the Court
It would seem clear from the record that the appellees were never individually in the Probate Court of Franklin County.
On the hearing before the Probate Court of the application of Jane S. MacLean, administratrix of the estate of John S. MacLean, for an apportionment of the federal and state taxes mentioned above, the Columbus attorney, who participated in the events described, testified that “the only fees I have ever received from the Strattons were those fees way back in 1950 in connection with the working out of the gift transaction between Mr. MacLean and the four children.” He testified further that he had never represented the appellees personally.
In addition, the attorney testified that he was never specifically engaged as an attorney at law by the estate of Margaret Stratton for the purpose of determining an allocation of either federal estate taxes or state succession taxes in connection with the estate of John S. MacLean.
In these circumstances, did the Probate Court of Franklin County possess jurisdiction to impose personal liability on appellees, nonresidents of Ohio, for the payment of their alleged share of the federal and state taxes paid out of the probate assets of the John S. MacLean estate and growing out of the gift made in 1950? We do not think so. That gift took place when John S. MacLean and Margaret Stratton were still alive and Margaret Stratton was the recipient of her father’s bounty. Margaret Stratton survived her father, and no claim, was ever asserted against her personally or against her estate, which was not closed until 1955, for the payment of the state and federal taxes imposed in connection with the 1950 gift. Any finding that the appellees herein entered their appearances personally or by individual representation in the Probate Court of Franklin County is not supported by the evidence. It is our opinion that the appellees may not be individually charged with the payment of the federal and state taxes asserted against them in an ex parte proceeding. The collection of such taxes would depend on a proper adversary proceeding wherein personal service or voluntary entry of appearance would be required, with the opportunity accorded defendants of asserting any defense they might have.
As has already been remarked, Margaret Stratton was the
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.