Ohio Supreme Court, 1986

State ex rel. Matasy v. Morley

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided July 9, 1986 · Brown, Celebrezze, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Only, Sweeney, Wright

25 Ohio St. 3d 22; 494 N.E.2d 1146; 25 Ohio B. 18; 1986 Ohio LEXIS 682

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Oil & Gas Commission (Ohio 2013)
State ex rel. Barth v. Hamilton County Board of Elections (Ohio 1992)
State ex rel. Suwalksi v. Peeler (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2021)
State ex rel. Ohio Stands Up!, Inc. v. DeWine (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2021)
State ex rel. New Prospect Baptist Church v. Ruehlman (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
State ex rel. Cordray v. Marshall (Ohio 2009)
Rogers v. Marshall, 05ca3004 (11-24-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
State Ex Rel. Petro v. Marshall, Unpublished Decision (10-10-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
Local Union 1886 v. Ohio Reclamation Board of Review (Ohio Ct. App. 1996)
Ex Rel. Hitchcock v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prob. Div. (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)
State ex rel. Hitchcock v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Appellant challenges the authority of a probate judge to appoint someone other than one selected by the executor or administrator of an estate to act as the appraiser of that estate. In addition, appellant objects to the court’s revision of Standard Probate Form 3.0.

*23Pursuant to this court’s holding in State, ex rel. Skilton, v. Miller (1955), 164 Ohio St. 163 [57 O.O. 145], paragraph two of the syllabus, where “no legal right of a person can be affected by the failure of a public official to act in any given manner, such person does not have a beneficial interest such as will permit him to maintain an action in mandamus to require such official to so act.” Similarly, a prohibition action may only be commenced by a person who is either a party to the proceeding sought to be prohibited, State, ex rel. Pratt, v. Earhart (1956), 164 Ohio St. 480 [58 O.O. 324], or demonstrates an injury in fact to a legally protected interest. State, ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, v. Phillips (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 457 [75 O.O.2d 511].

In the case at bar, we fail to see how any beneficial interest of appellant may be said to be adversely affected by the actions at issue. R.C. 2115.06 requires that estates “be appraised by one suitable disinterested person appointed by the executor or administrator, subject to the approval of the court * * *.” Clearly, this language subjects appellant’s right to serve as the appraiser of any estate upon the approval of the court. In the absence of such approval, appellant has no legal interest which may be affected by the court’s selection of another appraiser.

Likewise, appellant has failed to establish any legal interest affected by the court’s revision of Standard Probate Form 3.0.

For the reasons set forth herein, we hereby affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, C. Brown and Douglas, JJ., concur. Wright, J., concurs in judgment only. Holmes, J., not participating.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.