Anne Splain, Administratrix of the Estate of William C. Watson, Deceased vs. Estate of Samuel B. Watson, Judith D. Gifford, Executrix and Ronald S. Watson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT ANNE SPLAIN, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM C. WATSON, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ESTATE OF SAMUEL B. WATSON, JUDITH D. GIFFORD, EXECUTRIX, DEFENDANT, RONALD S. WATSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 98 C.A. 150 O P I N I O N CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. 95CV1715 JUDGMENT: Affirmed APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: Atty. Alan D. Wenger 1200 Mahoning Bank Building Youngstown, Ohio 44503 For Defendant-Appellant: Atty. Alan J. Matavich 950 Windham Court, Suite 2 Youngstown, Ohio 44512 JUDGES: Hon. Gene Donofrio Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich Hon. Cheryl L. Waite Dated: March 13, 2001 - 1 - DONOFRIO, J. Defendant-appellant, Ronald S. Watson, appeals a judgment rendered by the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, adopting the magistrate s decision which awarded a one-half interest in land to plaintiff-appellee, William C. Watson. Samuel Watson (Samuel) and William Cecil Watson (Cecil) were brothers who carried on various business ventures together. On August 3, 1967, Samuel and Cecil entered into a land contract to purchase land located in Springfield Township, County, Ohio, from Pauline Schwartz (Pauline). Mahoning Samuel and Cecil both worked on the land, which they had used as a farm, and both contributed almost equally to paying for the farm and for taxes on the farm. On August 18, 1976, Richard Schwartz (Schwartz) and Helen Rose Davis (Davis), the heirs of Pauline, gave a deed to the subject land which was only in the name of Samuel. Samuel s name was the only name on the deed allegedly as a result of a meeting which Samuel and Cecil had with Attorney James Bennett (Attorney Bennett) in July or August of 1976, wherein both Samuel and Cecil instructed Attorney Bennett to prepare a deed containing only Samuel s name. A written instruction to draft the deed in this manner was never produced. and Cecil was named executor of Samuel died in 1995 Samuel s estate. Cecil - 2 - thereafter learned that the deed to the land in question was in Samuel s name only and that Samuel passed the land by will to his son, Ronald Watson (Ronald). Cecil filed a complaint claiming a one-half interest in the land. The complaint named Samuel s estate, Schwartz, Davis, and was later amended to include Ronald. Schwartz and Davis were dismissed without prejudice after they stipulated that they did not have knowledge of any circumstances surrounding the problematic deed and would sign any documents necessary to carry out the final orders or decisions of this case. Cecil died on March 28, 1997, and Anne Splain was named executrix of Cecil s estate. Splain (hereinafter granted permission to carry referred on the to as appellee) was cause of action the in present matter on Cecil s behalf. On July 6, 1998, this matter was tried before a magistrate. The magistrate rendered his decision on July 15, 1998, which awarded an undivided one-half interest to appellee. Neither Ronald nor Samuel s estate (hereinafter referred to collectively as appellants) filed objections to the magistrate s decision with the trial court. On July 30, 1998, the trial court adopted the magistrate s decision. This appeal followed. Appellant s sole assignment of error on appeal states: THE JUDGMENT ENTRY OF THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMING THE MAGISTRATE S DECISION IS NOT - 3 - SUSTAINED BY THE EVIDENCE, IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, AND IS CONTRARY TO LAW. Appellant s failure to file objections to the magistrate s report precludes us from reaching the merits of his arguments. A party may file written objections to the magistrate s decision within fourteen days of the 53(E)(3)(a). Objections particularity. Civ.R. filing must be 53(E)(3)(b). of the specific decision. and Civ.R. stated with [a] party Furthermore, shall not assign as error on appeal the court s adoption of any finding of objected fact to or that conclusion finding or of law conclusion unless the under party [Civ.R. has 53]. Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b). This rule reinforces the finality of trial court by proceedings providing that failure to object constitutes a waiver on appeal of a matter which could have been raised by objection. Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b), commentary. In the matter before us, the record reflects a failure on appellant s decision. this part file objections to the magistrate's Instead, appellants allowed the lower court to adopt decision According to to as the its own, language then of filed the Civ.R. 53, present appeal. appellants are prohibited from raising any issues in this appeal because they have waived them. See Thomas v. Thomas (Nov. 1, 2000), Jefferson App. No. 99-JE-59, unreported, 2000 WL 1672879; Southgate I & - 4 - II, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Health (Nov. 16, 1999), Mahoning App. No. 97-CA-182, unreported, 1999 WL 1050096. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the magistrate s decision was not contrary to law. not abandon the land. The evidence indicated that Cecil did Cecil continued to participate in the farming operations, paid for cattle and taxes and shared in rental correct proceeds in until concluding Samuel s that death. testimony The about magistrate Cecil s was alleged instruction regarding title to the deed did not overcome the Statute of Frauds. Therefore, the magistrate properly found that appellee had an undivided one-half interest in the land. Appellant s sole assignment of error is without merit. The judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed. Vukovich, J., concurs Waite, J., concurs
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
