State ex rel. Goldberg v. Mahoning County Probate Court
Docket: No. 00-2238
Court: Ohio Supreme Court; September 5, 2001; Ohio; State Supreme Court
In April 1999, the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, and Judge Timothy P. Maloney began investigating attorney Richard D. Goldberg for alleged misconduct involving the concealment, embezzlement, and misappropriation of funds from seventeen estates. Judge Maloney discovered that Goldberg had improperly deposited settlement checks into his personal "trustee" account without approval from the fiduciaries or the probate court, utilizing these funds for personal expenses. Further findings indicated Goldberg's failure to return client and estate files and his liquidation of certain property holdings in 1999.
On June 23, 2000, Judge Maloney ordered the seizure of Goldberg's financial records and property, directing the bailiff to search his home, a warehouse, and any other locations for relevant items. This order was based on R.C. 2715.01 et seq. and R.C. 2109.56. The following day, law enforcement executed the order, seizing several items, including luxury watches and rugs, despite objections from Goldberg's wife, Dorothy Goldberg. The order was not initiated by estate representatives and lacked the required supporting affidavit per R.C. 2715.03.
On July 3, 2000, Mrs. Goldberg filed for a writ of prohibition in the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County to halt the enforcement of the attachment order. The court denied the motion to dismiss and ordered briefs on the matter. The appellants defended the attachment order as an appropriate remedy. However, in November 2000, the court of appeals granted the writ of prohibition, ruling that while the probate court had jurisdiction to issue the attachment order, it did so in an unconstitutional manner, necessitating the return of the seized property to Mrs. Goldberg.
An appeal is currently before the court regarding a writ of prohibition sought by Mrs. Goldberg against Judge Maloney and the probate court. To succeed, she must demonstrate that: (1) the court is about to exercise judicial power, (2) that exercise is unauthorized by law, and (3) denial of the writ would result in injury without an alternative legal remedy. The appellants argue that prohibition is unwarranted since they have already acted by entering a prior attachment order. However, precedent indicates that prohibition can be granted even after actions taken if an inferior court clearly lacks jurisdiction. The court emphasizes that in cases of clear jurisdictional absence, the ability to appeal is irrelevant. The appellants still possess the attached property due to the unlawful attachment order. The core issue is whether the appellants lacked jurisdiction to issue this order in concealment proceedings. The court affirms that they did lack jurisdiction, aligning with the appellate court's judgment. Probate courts have limited jurisdiction, restricted to actions authorized by statute and the Ohio Constitution. The appellants argue they have jurisdiction under specific Ohio Revised Code sections, but these do not grant probate courts the authority to issue prejudgment attachment orders concerning personal property. R.C. 2109.50 pertains to special proceedings for retrieving misappropriated estate assets and does not extend to attachment orders. The scope of such proceedings must be interpreted based on statutory language and common grammatical usage.
A probate court may initiate proceedings against individuals suspected of concealing, embezzling, or unlawfully transferring assets of a trust estate upon complaint by an interested party or creditor. The court can compel the accused to appear for examination under oath. However, R.C. 2109.50 limits such proceedings to instances where the assets in question are part of the estate. In this case, the assets allegedly concealed—proceeds from wrongful death settlements—are not considered estate assets, as established in the case U.S. Fid. Guar. Co. v. Decker. Wrongful death claims arise posthumously and do not belong to the decedent's estate, hence cannot be inventoried as estate property. Lower courts affirm that these funds are for the exclusive benefit of statutory beneficiaries and cannot be used to settle the decedent’s debts. Although an estate representative has a duty to manage wrongful death proceeds, these funds are not classified as part of the decedent's estate. Therefore, the probate court lacked jurisdiction under R.C. 2109.50 to proceed with the case related to these proceeds. Even if wrongful death proceeds were deemed estate assets, R.C. 2109.50 would only allow for the attachment of individuals, not their personal property, as confirmed by the appellate court.
Black's Law Dictionary defines "attachment" as the arrest of a person who is either in contempt of court or held as security for a judgment. Under R.C. 2715.01(D), a prejudgment attachment of personal property must follow procedures outlined in R.C. Chapter 2715, applicable only in civil actions for the recovery of money, as specified in R.C. 2715.01(A). A concealment action under R.C. 2109.50 is not categorized as a civil action but as a quasi-criminal proceeding, and therefore is not a substitute for civil recovery actions. The probate court lacks jurisdiction to issue prejudgment attachment orders in such concealment proceedings, as neither R.C. 2101.24(A)(2) nor (C) expressly grants this authority. The Revised Code does not provide probate courts jurisdiction over concealment actions regarding wrongful death claim proceeds, and R.C. 2715.01(A) and (D) specifically restrict probate courts from issuing such orders.
Even if jurisdiction were assumed, the appellants exceeded it by failing to meet necessary statutory and constitutional prerequisites for a prejudgment attachment order, which include the requirement for a bond, an affidavit based on personal knowledge, judicial review of the affidavit, bond posting by the defendant to dissolve the seizure, and an immediate hearing for the defendant. The court of appeals concluded that the appellants did not satisfy these constitutional requirements, rendering the Probate Judge's actions unconstitutional, particularly his failure to require an affidavit or independent judicial review of the attachment request.
The requirement for a bond or security to compensate a defendant in cases of wrongful procedure has been eliminated. Respondents' claim that the Probate Court's findings related to the concealment action serve as an affidavit is rejected, as those findings lacked personal knowledge of specific facts and were not subject to independent review. The findings are deemed too general and do not specify any property taken from the relator. The process of prejudgment attachment cannot allow a judge to both present facts and decide their sufficiency for constitutional compliance, analogous to a judge submitting an affidavit for a search warrant and subsequently ruling on its adequacy. The Probate Judge's actions led to an unconstitutional prejudgment order of attachment. As established, probate court proceedings must adhere to statutory and constitutional guidelines, which did not authorize the prejudgment attachment of Mrs. Goldberg's personal property. Consequently, the court of appeals correctly issued a writ of prohibition to annul this order and mandate the return of the property to Mrs. Goldberg at the appellants' expense. The appellants clearly lacked jurisdiction for the prejudgment attachment order. The judgment granting the writ of prohibition is affirmed, with concurrence from Chief Justice Moyer and Justices Douglas, Resnick, Sweeney, and Cook, while Justices Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton dissent. Additionally, attorney Goldberg's affidavit of resignation was denied, and he was found in contempt of court in May 2000.
