In re Skrobut3/19/2003
JUDGMENT: Reversed
. Appellant, Key Trust Company of Ohio, N.A. ("Key Trust"), appeals a decision of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, Probate Division. Appellant alleges error in appellee Mahoning County Probate Court's ("Probate Court") decision finding it in contempt of court.
. Daniel and Cheryl Skrobut's son, Daniel R. Skrobut, Jr., received approximately $3.6 million from a medical malpractice case. In September 1995, the probate court appointed the Skrobut's as co-guardians over their son's person and estate. The Skrobuts deposited their son's assets with Key Trust under an Investment Management Agreement. Soon thereafter, they filed a motion to establish a trust for their son with Key Trust as trustee, but the court rejected this proposal. In November 1996, they filed a supplemental motion to establish a trust requesting Mahoning National Bank as trustee. On December 26, 1996, the court sustained the motion for a trust but rejected a corporate trustee and appointed an attorney as trustee instead. They appealed the probate court's decision to this court, and we affirmed. In re Guardianship of Skrobut (Apr. 30, 1998), 7th Dist. No. 97 C.A. 18.
. On January 23, 1997, the probate court ordered the Skrobuts to file their final account with the court. They failed to comply. On September 30, 1997, the Skrobuts were again ordered to file their final account by October 13, 1997 or to be deemed in contempt of court. After a hearing at which only a partial account was filed, the probate court, on January 26, 1998 found the Skrobuts to be in contempt and revoked the appointment of them as guardians of their son's estate. At this time the court denied Key Trust's request for fees and ordered Key Trust to account for all prior fees, commissions, interest, and any and all other forms of remuneration. The probate court found that Key Trust was not to be anything more than a depository bank of the wholly restricted account for the minor ward. This decision was appealed by the Skrobuts and this court upheld the actions of the probate court. In re Guardianship of Skrobut (Sept. 10, 1999), 7th Dist. No. 98 CA 38.
. On February 17,1998, at a hearing with the Skrobuts concerning a partial account filed by them on January 7, 1998, the probate court was informed by them that Key Trust had taken $13,957.55 in "trust" fees, and then rebated $3,957.55 of those fees, without any order of the court allowing Key Trust to take any fees.
. On April 5, 1998, the probate court ordered Key Trust to report and show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failure to account to the court. At the hearing on April 23, 1998, Key Trust admitted it had taken $3,147.32 on what it termed quarterly fees, and taken and returned other fees of $1,649.37 and $2,039.16, which were never authorized or approved by the court. As a result of this hearing, on April 30, 1998, the court found Key Trust in contempt for not fully accounting and taking fees not authorized or approved by the court in violation of prior court orders. Key Trust was given the opportunity to "cure" the contempt by rendering an "accurate accounting and full disclosure." A hearing was set for July 30,1998.
. After a hearing and a supplemental memo by Key Trust, the trial court, on October 30, 1998, found Key Trust to be in contempt a second time for failure to fully account and disclose all fees, commissions, etc. they had taken from Daniel's trust. The court again ordered Key Trust to fully account and disclose all fees, commissions, etc. and to disgorge itself of all fees, commissions, interest, etc. it had taken. The court also fined Key Trust $500.00 per day plus costs commencing af
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|