In re Estate of Holbrook

         Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, Case No. 2014 ES 57826

          For Appellants MICHELA HUTH

          For Appellee GREG BECK, ANDREA K. ZIARKO

          Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P. J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. John W. Wise, J.

          OPINION

          Wise, John, J.

         {¶1} Appellants Irvin Huth, Kay Huth, and Michela Huth appeal the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, Tuscarawas County, which denied their motion to vacate judgment regarding attorney fees in favor of Defendant-Appellee Tama Kus, Administrator of the Estate of Bryon Holbrook, and subsequently denied appellants' request to supplement their earlier objection to the underlying magistrate's decision.^[1]The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.

         {¶2} Bryon Holbrook died intestate in July 2014. On August 6, 2014, his estate administration was opened in the Tuscarawas County Probate Court (case number 2014 ES 57826). Bryon's mother, Appellee Tama Kus, became the administrator of his estate.

         {¶3} On August 12, 2014, Appellee Kus filed a concealment action under R.C. 2109.50 against Michela Huth. On September 15, 2014, Kus filed an amended complaint adding alleged estate creditors Kay Huth and Irvin Huth.^[2] On October 13, 2015, the probate court magistrate, in a twenty-nine page decision, found inter alia Irvin Huth and Michela Huth guilty of wrongful possession of items of the Holbrook Estate, including a 2013 Silverado pickup truck. The magistrate made these two parties liable for attorney fees, to be determined by the probate court upon approval and adoption of the magistrate's decision.

          {¶4} On October 28, 2015, the probate court adopted the magistrate's decision.^[3]

         {¶5} On November 3, 2015, the court ordered the scheduling of an attorney fee hearing before the magistrate on November 30, 2015. A further hearing was necessitated on February 5, 2016.

         {¶6} On March 1, 2016, the magistrate found inter alia that Appellee Kus should receive a total of $7, 837.50 in attorney fees from Michela Huth, $1, 972.50 of which would be a joint and several liability of lrvin Huth.

         {¶7} On March 14, 2016, appellants objected to said magistrate's decision, therein informing the court that the objection would be supplemented upon the receipt of ordered transcripts. The objections of March 14, 2016 were cursory, with no specific objections listed therein.

         {¶8} On April 18, 2016, appellants filed a motion for an extension of time to pay for the transcripts until June 22, 2016. The probate court granted the requested extension on April 22, 2016.

         {¶9} On August 5, 2016, appellants' attorney, Michela Huth, was informed via email from the court reporter that the transcript of the attorney fee hearings was ready, and that additional monies ($219.50), above the estimated amount ...