 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Estate of Johnson6/8/1998
. Dispositive of this issue is the court's determination in Ohio Contract Carriers Assn., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1942), 140 Ohio St. 160, 161, 23 O.O. 369, 369, 42 N.E.2d 758, 758-759, where the court, quoting 2 American Jurisprudence 941, Section 149, stated:
"`It is a fundamental rule that to be entitled to institute appeal or error proceedings a person must have a present interest in the subject-matter of the litigation and must be aggrieved or prejudiced by the judgment, order or decree.' "
Similarly, in considering whether a guardian had a right of appeal from a probate court determination that the ward had been restored to reason, the court stated that "the guardian is not an interested party whose rights are affected by the decision of the probate court, nor is she an aggrieved party under such order." In re Guardianship of Love (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 111, 115, 48 O.O.2d 107, 109-110, 249 N.E.2d 794, 796. See, also, Ohio Domestic Violence Network v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 438, 605 N.E.2d 13.
The record before us demonstrates that appellants clearly were not parties to the action in the probate court, nor did any of them have a present interest in the subject matter of that litigation, nor did they demonstrate that they were aggrieved parties under the probate court order.
Accordingly, we conclude that these appellants lack standing to appeal from the May 30, 1997 order of the probate court, as they were not parties to that litigation, had no present interest in its subject matter, and have failed to show they are aggrieved by it in any fashion. For these reasons, we dismiss this appeal, and we need not reach the other issues presented.
Appeal dismissed.
BLACKMON, A.J., and PORTER, J., concur.
|