The Ohio Court of Appeals recently upheld a ruling concerning the estate of Kathleen Anelia Busch, affirming a lower court's decision on how her estate's assets were managed. The case, In re Estate of Busch (Docket No. WD-25-073), involved a dispute over funds in a joint savings account after Kathleen's death. The ruling has implications for how joint accounts are treated in probate cases and the responsibilities of those acting under a power of attorney.
HCF of Perrysburg, Inc., a skilled nursing facility where Kathleen resided, filed objections to the estate's inventory and appraisal. The facility claimed that funds in a joint account, which were held with her son Richard Miller, should have been considered part of Kathleen's estate. The court's decision affects not only the parties involved but also sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Background
The dispute centers around Kathleen Busch's estate, managed by her son Richard Miller, who was also the executor of her will. Kathleen's will, dated August 8, 2019, named Richard as the sole beneficiary. After Kathleen's death on September 25, 2024, HCF filed a claim against her estate for unpaid nursing home bills, totaling $15,789.93.
Kathleen had lived at HCF since July 2024, and during her time there, she had signed a Consent to Treat & Admission Agreement. However, she did not designate Richard as a financial representative in that agreement. The estate's inventory, filed on July 1, 2025, listed only $8,395.26 in assets, prompting HCF to object, arguing that the remaining funds in the joint account should have been included in the estate's assets.
The Ruling
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Gene A. Zmuda, affirmed the trial court's decision, which had denied HCF's objections. The trial court found that Richard had not violated his fiduciary duties as Kathleen's attorney-in-fact. The court noted, "The evidence before the court does not support a finding that Richard... violated his fiduciary duties arising from his role as Kathleen’s attorney in fact."
The court also emphasized that Kathleen had the legal right to manage her accounts and that Richard's actions were in line with her wishes. The trial court concluded that the funds in the joint account were Richard's lawful property and not part of the estate's assets. The court stated, "Monies received from the sale of the real estate were actually deposited into one of the two accounts that Kathleen would no doubt have deposited the sales proceeds herself and used for Kathleen’s benefit while Kathleen was alive." This ruling reinforces the legal standing of joint accounts in probate matters.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for how joint accounts are treated in probate cases. It clarifies that funds in joint accounts, especially those established with rights of survivorship, may not automatically be considered part of the deceased's estate. The court's decision highlights the importance of understanding the intentions behind joint ownership and the legal rights of surviving account holders.
Moreover, the ruling underscores the responsibilities of individuals acting under a power of attorney. It establishes that while the attorney-in-fact has fiduciary duties to the principal, those duties do not extend to third parties, such as creditors of the estate. This could influence future cases where the actions of an attorney-in-fact are scrutinized in relation to estate management.
What's Next
HCF may consider further legal options, including an appeal to a higher court, although the ruling from the Ohio Court of Appeals is binding unless overturned. The case sets a precedent for how similar disputes might be resolved in the future, particularly regarding the treatment of joint accounts in probate cases.