Proven Results: A Look At My Recent Legal Triumphs

Mr. Fried has tried many cases to verdict in the field of trust and estate law. Many of his cases are frequently cited as influential authority in the probate courts throughout Ohio. Below are just a few of the appellate cases in which Mr. Fried has been involved on behalf of beneficiaries, trustees, or those who seek to be included in estate plans from which his clients claim they were wrongly excluded.

In re Estate of Abraitis, 2018-Ohio-584: Successful Appeal upholding Probate Court Order Removing Executor. As stated by the 8th District Court of Appeals: “During the hearing, Fried questioned Brady as if she were under cross-examination. Brady did not present witnesses or other evidence. It is axiomatic that the scope of cross-examination lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and is viewed in relation to the particular facts of the case. State v. Peterson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 100897 and 100899, 2015–Ohio–1013, ¶ 97, citing State v. Cannon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100658, 2014–Ohio–4801, ¶ 15. The exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Id., citing id. A review of the record shows that Fried’s questions to Brady were appropriate and any “intimidation” or “harassment” Brady may have felt most likely stemmed from the understandable frustration with Brady’s responses, or lack thereof. Brady blatantly refused to answer the questions she was being asked.”

Haddad v. Maalouf-Masek, 2024-Ohio-1983: 8th District Court of Appeals affirmed order granted summary judgment against the Plaintiff who brought claims against her sister alleging Intentional Interference with an Expectancy of an Inheritance. The 8th District Court of Appeals made clear that the mere fact that a daughter, at one time had a close relationship with her mother, is not enough to establish an expectancy in an inheritance.

Rheinhold v. Reichek, 2014-Ohio-31: Fried, who represented a financial institution, argued that claims brought in the general division seeking redress for moneys alleged to have been wrongfully distributed from a guardianship account, must be brought in the Probate Division of the Common Pleas Court and that the General Division lacked jurisdiction. According to the 8th Dist. Court of Appeals: “all of Rheinhold’s claims arise out of the alleged conduct by Pickering, as guardian, Reichek, as attorney for guardian, the probate court’s approval to terminate the guardianship and allow Pickering to access the estate funds, and Dollar Bank’s handling of the funds. In her complaint, Rheinhold challenges the actions of the guardian, attorney for the guardian, the probate court’s administration of her estate, and Dollar Bank’s distribution of estate funds. These claims “touch the guardianship” and are, therefore, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court. The fact that the guardianship has terminated does not foreclose the probate court’s exclusive jurisdiction.”

Phillips v. Phillips, 2013-Ohio-3025: Fried, on behalf of three of the children of the decedent brought an action seeking declaratory judgment, constructive trust, accounting, Trust construction, and claims for intentional interference of an expectancy of inheritance. As to the claims compelling certain transactions regarding shares of a closely held company, the Court of appeals reversed the trial court’s decision dismissing the case on lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the 5th district stated: “From the complaint’s very language, the wording of the trust was not at issue, but the results of appellee’s conduct or omissions pre-testamentary were. We therefore conclude the claims under the declaratory judgment action are not related to issues regarding the administration of the estate and are not subject to the probate court’s jurisdiction.” Further, on the intentional interference claim, the court similarly concluded that jurisdiction was properly brought in the general division: “The facts sub judice are inapposite to the decisions cited above. This case does not include an unresolved will contest, an undue influence claim in probate court, or any issue as to judicial expediency. The complaint does not include a specific challenge to the wording of the trust or its true meaning. The claims sound in tort and fraud due to appellee’s failure to carry out her father’s wishes prior to his death. See, July 13, 2012 Complaint at ¶ 12–15, 27–36, 39–43. We conclude Counts III and V are within the jurisdiction of the general division, not the probate division.”

Filo v Filo, 2021-Ohio-413: In this case, Fried defended allegations that his client, the son of Elmer Filo, unduly influenced his father to change his trust. The Plaintiff, who was the sister of the Defendant, also alleged that her father lacked testamentary capacity. The Jury returned a verdict in favor of Fried’s client, and the sister appealed. In upholding the Jury Verdict, the Court of Appeals commented on Jury Instructions and, in particular the test of Undue Influence and the applicability of the evidentiary presumptions applicable to fiduciary relationships and noted as follows: “The record indicates that the existence of the fiduciary relationship between Terry and Elmer raised a presumption that the gifts to Terry were void. However, during the trial, Terry presented substantial credible evidence that Elmer made each of his decisions free from undue influence to overcome the presumption. This evidence included the testimony of Elmer’s second attorney, which the probate court found “highly credible.” Elmer’s second attorney testified regarding the specific steps he took to guard against undue influence, and gave detailed descriptions of the meetings he had with Elmer and how Elmer behaved in regard to the decisions he made. Terry also presented evidence from experts regarding Elmer’s state of mind and his cognitive abilities during the timeframe of the changes Elmer made to his estate plan.”

Tomazic v. Rappaport, 2012-Ohio-4402: Fried represented a beneficiary who sued to remove a trustee that attempted to terminate her interest in trust. The Trustee defended and argued that the Trustee was a “Wholly Discretionary Trust” and therefore he had the power to act as he did. The Court of appeals upheld the trial court’s removal of the Trustee following trial. On appeal, the 8th District Court of Appeals stated: Moreover, despite Rapoport’s arguments to the contrary, in Ohio, even a grant of absolute discretion will be controlled by the court if the trustee acts in bad faith, dishonestly, or with an improper motive. As the court stated in *1073 In re Estate of Ternansky, 141 N.E.2d 189, 1957 Ohio App. LEXIS 1088 (9th Dist.1957): “Courts are not powerless to enforce this trust. Trustees must always act in good faith and always act fairly and reasonably, and a court of equity will and can require such behavior. Where a trustee is given uncontrolled discretion, as here, he acts much as a judicial officer and is duty bound to exercise sound discretion under the circumstances. A court of equity will not tolerate abuse of sound discretion * * *.”

Haddad v. Maalouf-Masek, 2022-Ohio-4085: Fried defended the beneficiary of a will in a case to a jury, alleging that the Defendant had exercised undue influence over her mother and that her mother also lacked capacity at the time she executed her will. The Court of Appeals for the 8th District upheld the Jury’s decision in favor of Fried’s client, noting as follows: “Jury instruction, recited to jury, that indicated executor of testator’s estate and will beneficiary stipulated that will was signed in accordance with required formalities did not prejudice beneficiary in will contest action brought against executor, even though beneficiary argued only issue before jury was whether will was product of undue influence and indicated that instruction was confusing; paper instructions provided to jury omitted such instruction, immediately after instruction was given, court explained to jury undue influence and what jury was tasked with determining, and jury interrogatories required jurors to consider whether testator was susceptible to undue influence, whether executor had opportunity to and did exert undue influence, and whether will was product of undue influence” See West’s headnotes #1.

Wynveen v. Corsaro, 2017-Ohio-9170: In this case, Fried represented a beneficiary of an irrevocable trust in an action against the Trustee seeking removal and other relief. The Trustee counterclaimed seeking to collect a debt against the beneficiary, using the Trustee’s law partner to pursue said claim. The trial court, on motion to disqualify brought by the beneficiary, granted the same. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the 8th District found: “Seldom is the client’s dependence upon, and trust in, his attorney greater than when, contemplating his own mortality, he seeks the attorney’s advice, guidance, and drafting skill in the preparation of a will to dispose of his estate after death. These consultations are often among the most private to take place between an attorney and his client. The client is dealing with his innermost thoughts and feelings, which he may not wish to share with his spouse, children and other next of kin. Because of the decisions that go into the preparation of a will are so inherently private, * * * a client is unusually dependent upon his attorney’s professional advice and skill when he consults the attorney to have a will drawn. With that in mind, it is easy to conclude that Corsaro’s involvement with Bradley’s estate planning revealed a great deal of private information that will certainly be at issue in the current action.”

Young v. Kaufman, 2020-Ohio-3283: Fried, on behalf of one of the Defendants, defended a challenge to the decedent’s will and Trust on claims brought by the Plaintiffs to a Jury. The Trial Court granted a directed verdict, dismissing the case. On appeal, which included many evidentiary issues, the subject of fiduciary relationships and presumptions, and other complicated issues including alleged mandates relating to prior appellate history, the trial court decision was affirmed.