 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Guardianship of Brady1/27/2005
Stone v. Davis (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 74; In re Schoeppner (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 21; Stephan's Machine & Tool v. D & H Machinery Consultants (1979), 65 Ohio App.2d 197. Therefore, given the specific facts of this case, findings of fact and conclusions of law were not required.
{ } Pursuant to R.C. 2111.18, the guardian has the authority to settle a claim for property damage filed on the ward's behalf with the advice, approval and consent of the probate court. The motion filed by the guardian to request the court's consent did not ask the court to decide any fact question; it asked the court to make a judgment whether the settlement was in the ward's best interest. This is not the type of decision which requires findings of fact and conclusions of law.
{ } With respect to the exceptions to the guardian's account, the court stated in its journal entry that it was overruling the exceptions for the reasons stated on the record. The court's reasoning as set forth at the hearing on her exceptions was presumably sufficient to explain the basis for the court's decision. See Brandon/Wiant Co. v. Teamor (1999), 135 Ohio App.3d 417, 423 (trial court substantially complies with Civ.R. 52 when its judgment adequately explains the basis for its decision).
{ } Appellant finally argues that the court abused its discretion by approving the guardian's application for authority to settle. Appellant suggests various reasons why the court should not approve the settlement. However, in addition to the fact that the court's actions were properly based on the evidence presented, we find appellant has no standing to object in this particular argument. Under R.C. 2111.18, this issue was strictly in the guardian's power, with the court's approval. Therefore, we find appellant's claim to be without merit.
{ } Appellant's second, third and fourth assignments of error are overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
JAMES D. SWEENEY JUDGE
KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., and
JOYCE J. GEORGE, J., CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|