In re Estate of Taylor

2025 Ohio 1084

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 28, 2025
• Docket: 30224
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as In re Estate of Taylor, 2025-Ohio-1084.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF : MARTHA JANE TAYLOR : AKA MARTHA J. TAYLOR : C.A. No. 30224 AKA MARTHA TAYLOR : : Trial Court Case No. 2022 EST 001100 : : (Appeal from Common Pleas Court- : Probate Division) : :

...........

OPINION

Rendered on March 28, 2025

MICHAEL MARTIN, Pro Se Appellant

DANA A. STAMPS, Attorney for Appellee

.............

HUFFMAN, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Michael J. Martin (“Martin”), appeals pro se from a probate court

judgment which denied his motion for relief from judgment and his request for discovery

and a stay in connection with the administration of the estate of Martha Taylor. While

Martin broadly contends that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling his motion, -2-

Martin’s brief does not comply with App.R. 16(A) and does not raise any proper

assignment(s) of error. Accordingly, Martin’s appeal is dismissed.

I. Facts and Course of Proceedings

{¶ 2} The following facts are taken in part from our opinion in Martin’s prior appeal,

In re Estate of Taylor, 2024-Ohio-1496 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 3} On May 20, 2022, Sharon Martin filed a notice in the probate court that she

was depositing Martha Taylor’s will, which was attached to the notice. In the will, which

was dated October 25, 2021, Martha left all her personal and real property to Sharon,

who was her sister. The will further said that if Sharon failed to survive Martha by 60 days,

Sharon’s share would lapse and the property would pass to Tasha Martin. Additionally,

the will designated Sharon as executor and appointed Tasha as executor if Sharon could

not serve.

{¶ 4} On May 23, 2022, Sharon filed a document listing the surviving spouse,

children, next of kin, legatees, and devisees. According to this document, Martha did not

have a surviving spouse or adopted or biological children. Martha’s parents were both

deceased, and she had five siblings: Sharon, Ann Martin, Michael Martin (appellant),

Drew Martin, and Wanda Martin. Also on May 23, Sharon filed an application for authority

to administer the estate and listed $53,000 in personal property and $56,000 in real

property, for a total estate value of $109,000. The application said that Martha had died

on October 23, 2021. In addition, Sharon waived notice of the probate of the will and filed

a fiduciary’s acceptance, by which she agreed to assume the executor’s duties.

{¶ 5} On June 7, 2022, the probate court filed entries admitting the will to probate -3-

and approving Sharon’s application to probate the will. The same day, the court filed

entries appointing Sharon as executor and appointing an appraiser. A death certificate

filed that day said Taylor had died at Miami Valley Hospital in Dayton, Ohio, on October

23, 2021.

{¶ 6} On July 5, 2022, Martin filed a pro se objection to the will and asked the clerk

to send him forms and a booklet of the court’s rules. Martin mentioned that the facility in

which he lived (a prison) lacked forms for contesting the will. The probate court’s docket

does not contain any response to this request.

{¶ 7} On July 7, 2022, Sharon filed a certificate of service of notice of probate of

the will. This document stated that all persons entitled to notice had waived service, had

received notice of the hearing on the probate of the will or a contest as to jurisdiction, or

had not been notified because their names or places of residence were unknown or could

not be ascertained with reasonable diligence. Supporting affidavits were also filed. One

affidavit discussed unsuccessful efforts to reach Wanda. The other affidavit said that all

legatees or devisees other than Martin, Ann, and Drew had waived notice of the will’s

probate or their addresses were unknown. Certified mail receipts for Martin, Ann, and

Drew were attached to this affidavit.

{¶ 8} On September 19, 2022, the court filed “correspondence” it had received

from Ann. In this document, Ann objected to Sharon being a fiduciary. Ann further alleged

that Sharon had failed to disclose assets to her attorney that belonged to the parties’

mother, not Martha. The only identified asset was a Fifth Third Bank account that allegedly

contained $86,000 to $90,000. Another document was filed that day in what appears to -4-

be the same handwriting; it identified Ann, Martin, and Drew as next of kin and listed their

addresses.

{¶ 9} On October 4, 2022, the probate court filed two pro se documents it had

received from Martin. The first was a motion seeking leave to file in forma pauperis without

posting a $250 filing fee for civil cases. The motion also asked the court to waive other

filing requirements, including page size and copies. In the motion, Martin stated that he

had been incarcerated since March 2016 and received only $18 per month, which he

used for necessities. The court never ruled on this motion.

{¶ 10} In the second document, Martin challenged the will pursuant to R.C.

2107.71, contending it was fraudulent because the signature did not belong to Martha.

Martin also noted that the will was dated October 25, 2021, but the death certificate stated

that Martha had died two days earlier. Like Ann, Martin asked the court to appoint a

different executor due to Sharon’s alleged fraud.

{¶ 11} On October 11, 2022, Martin asked the court to “appoint counsel” and

to grant an extension of time so he could more fully respond to the matters at issue.

According to Martin, Martha was “on” an account from Wright Patterson or Fifth Third

Bank that belonged to Roberta James, who had died approximately one week before

Martha died. Allegedly, Roberta was the siblings’ mother. Martin claimed Roberta's

account had contained $90,000 to $100,000, and he asked for an investigation. On

October 21, 2022, Martin filed another document in which he claimed a medical doctor

had determined that Martha had not been competent to sign anything on October 25,

2021, and had lacked mental capacity to sign a will, meaning that her signature had been -5-

forged. The court’s docket summary lists all the items Martin filed in October 2022 as

“correspondence.”

{¶ 12} Sharon filed an inventory and appraisal on October 28, 2022, listing the

following estate assets: $1,573 in tangible property; $93,081.64 in intangible property;

and $56,240 in real property, for a total of $150,894.64. As intangible property, the

schedule of assets included three accounts at Fifth Third Bank totaling $93,081.64. The

court set a November 30, 2022 decision date for the inventory and appraisal. Before that

date, on November 23, 2022, Martin filed exceptions to the inventory (and this document

was again docketed as “correspondence”). Once more, Martin claimed the Fifth Third

Bank accounts belonged to the parties’ mother, not to Martha. He also alleged fraud with

respect to a property deed in that it had been changed two weeks after Martha’s death to

remove the name of Martha’s late husband, Charles.

{¶ 13} On January 6, 2023, the court filed an entry approving the inventory and

appraisal because “no exceptions” had been filed. On July 31, 2023, Sharon reported

some minor newly discovered assets like escrow refunds, and the court approved that

report as well.

{¶ 14} On August 23, 2023, a magistrate filed a decision overruling Martin’s

exceptions. The court adopted the decision that same day. On September 8, 2023, Martin

filed a motion requesting a jury trial and another document that included two items:

objections to the magistrate’s decision and judge’s order and a notice of appeal. In

addition, Martin filed a motion seeking leave to file delayed objections. However, on

September 8, 2023 (the same day), Martin filed a notice of appeal with our court. -6-

{¶ 15} In that prior appeal, Martin contended that the probate court had erred in

finding that he failed to commence a separate will contest action. Throughout the course

of these proceedings, Martin has alleged that Sharon’s actions in this matter constituted

fraud; he even asked the court to appoint a different executor for this reason. In affirming

the judgment of the probate court, we explained that Martin had failed to timely file

objections to the magistrate’s decision and that no plain error had occurred to justify

setting aside the judgment, even if Martin’s pleading before the probate court was an

attempt to file a will contest. We concluded that, “while the trial court could properly have

construed Michael’s document as an effort to contest the will, Michael was not harmed

because his will contest action (even if actually attempted) was never successfully

commenced,” and accordingly, Martin’s assignment of error was without merit. In re

Estate of Taylor, 2024-Ohio-1496, at ¶ 70-71 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 16} After we affirmed the probate court’s decision, Martin filed a motion for relief

from judgment based on fraud; specifically, he sought an order from the probate court

vacating the judgment approving and settling the final account, allowing discovery, and

staying the case. The probate court denied Martin’s motion, reasoning that Martin’s failure

to properly trigger a will contest had previously been adjudicated, and his request to set

aside the will due to fraud had already been addressed and rejected in the prior

proceedings. In so holding, the probate court concluded that the doctrine of res judicata

precluded Martin’s attempt to once again contest the will, and it denied his motion.

{¶ 17} Martin now appeals.

II. Discussion -7-

{¶ 18} On appeal, Martin generally contends that the trial court erred by overruling

his request for discovery and otherwise abused its discretion in all aspects of this matter.

However, his brief contains no recognizable assignments of error, no citations to the

record, and no discernable arguments.

{¶ 19} App.R. 16(A) sets forth the requirements for an appellant’s brief on appeal.

The appellant shall include in its brief, under the headings and in the order

indicated, all of the following:

(1) A table of contents, with page references.

(2) A table of cases alphabetically arranged, statutes, and other authorities

cited, with references to the pages of the brief where cited.

(3) A statement of the assignments of error presented for review, with

reference to the place in the record where each error is reflected.

(4) A statement of the issues presented for review, with references to the

assignments of error to which each issue relates.

(5) A statement of the case briefly describing the nature of the case, the

course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court below.

(6) A statement of facts relevant to the assignments of error presented for

review, with appropriate references to the record in accordance with division

(D) of this rule.

(7) An argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to

each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support

of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the -8-

record on which appellant relies. The argument may be preceded by a

summary.

(8) A conclusion briefly stating the precise relief sought.

“A court of appeals may disregard any assignments of error not separately argued, or any

arguments not supported by references to the record.” Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc. v.

Mosbaugh, 2011-Ohio-5557, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.), citing App.R. 12(A)(2); Countrywide Homes,

Inc. v. Swayne, 2010-Ohio-3903, ¶ 58 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 20} Upon review, we conclude that Martin’s filing fails to satisfy the

requirements set forth in App.R. 16(A). “Litigants who choose to proceed pro se are

presumed to know the law and correct procedure, and are held to the same standard as

other litigants. A litigant proceeding pro se ‘cannot expect or demand special treatment

from the judge, who is to sit as an impartial arbiter.’ ” Mosbaugh at ¶ 12, citing Dunina v.

Stemple, 2007-Ohio-4719, ¶ 3 (2d Dist.). Although Martin proceeded in his appeal pro se,

“[w]e cannot give Appellant special treatment in this appeal and craft arguments and

assignments of error” that he failed to raise himself. Id.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 21} Martin’s appeal is dismissed.

TUCKER, J. and LEWIS, J., concur.