In re Guardianship of Hollins

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court held that a guardianship based exclusively on a ward’s status as a minor, and the probate court’s jurisdiction over that guardianship, terminate when the ward reaches the age of majority. Orders approving a settlement and removing the guardian issued after the ward’s eighteenth birthday were therefore invalid, although the probate court retained limited jurisdiction to consider the guardian’s final accounting.

Holdings

1. When a guardianship is predicated exclusively on a ward's status as a minor, the guardian's authority and the probate court's jurisdiction over the guardianship terminate when the ward reaches the age of majority.
2. Orders concerning the oversight of a minor guardianship that are issued after the ward reaches majority are invalid for lack of jurisdiction, including an order approving a settlement and an order removing the guardian.
3. The probate court retains a limited, independent jurisdiction to consider and settle a guardian's final account after the ward reaches majority, but that jurisdiction does not extend to other guardianship matters.
4. Evidence that the ward may have been incompetent does not establish continuing probate-court jurisdiction when the only guardianship actually created was based on minority and no guardianship based on incompetency was established before majority.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a probate court retains jurisdiction over a guardianship of a minor after the ward reaches age eighteen.
2. Whether the probate court's post-majority order approving the settlement and order removing the guardian were valid.
3. Whether the probate court retains jurisdiction after the ward reaches majority to consider and settle the guardian's final account.
4. Whether alleged incompetency supplied continuing jurisdiction when no guardianship based on incompetency had been created.

Disposition

affirmed