[Cite as In re Estate of Jasionowski, 2026-Ohio-2400.]
IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
IN RE: THE ESTATE OF JAMES Case No. 2025CA00165
JASIONOWSKI, DECEASED
Opinion And Judgment Entry
Appeal from the Probate Court of Stark County,
Ohio, Case No. 251929
Judgment: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry: June 24, 2026
BEFORE: Andrew J. King; William B. Hoffman; Robert G. Montgomery, Judges
APPEARANCES: MICHAEL JASIONOWSKI, Pro se, Appellant; JOHN
JASIONOWSKI, Pro se, Appellee.
Montgomery, J.
{¶1} Appellant Michael Jasionowski appeals the March 24, 2025, judgment
entered by the Stark County Common Pleas Court, Probate Division, granting Appellee
John Jasionowski’s application for summary estate administration and the November 17,
2025, judgment denying Appellant’s motion for Civ.R. 60(B) relief.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} The decedent, James Jasionowski, died on December 13, 2024. Appellee is
the decedent’s brother. Appellee filed an application for summary estate administration
in the trial court on March 20, 2024. Appellee filed a copy of the decedent’s will with the
application. The will stated the decedent was not married and had no children. Appellee
also filed a copy of an invoice from Reed Funeral Home, which stated that Appellee had
paid $3,104.53 for the decedent’s funeral expenses. The decedent’s sole asset was a
checking account with a balance of $522.86 at the time of his death.
{¶3} On March 24, 2024, the trial court granted the application for summary
administration and ordered the balance of the decedent’s checking account to be
transferred to Appellee.
{¶4} On October 18, 2025, Appellant filed a motion to vacate the order admitting
the will to probate due to lack of notice and incorrect statements in the will. Appellant
filed documents with his motion asserting he and his brother were adopted by the
decedent when they were children. The trial court overruled the motion by judgment
entry filed October 23, 2025, finding the will was not admitted to probate, and further
finding that Appellee was entitled to the entirety of the assets in the summary estate
administration because Appellee paid the funeral bill.
{¶5} Appellant filed a renewed motion to vacate the order granting summary
estate administration pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B) on November 17, 2025. The trial court
overruled the motion, finding that Appellant did not have a meritorious claim upon which
relief could be granted.
{¶6} It is from the March 24, 2024, and November 18, 2025, judgment of the trial
court Appellant prosecutes this appeal, assigning as error:
{¶7} “I. THE PROBATE COURT VIOLATED DUE PROCESS BY GRANTING
SUMMARY RELEASE WITHOUT NOTICE TO A KNOWN HEIR.”
{¶8} “II. THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING
APPELLANT’S RENEWED MOTION TO VACATE/MODIFY; FOR CLARIFICATION; TO
PRECLUDE RELIANCE ON AN UNADMITTED WILL; AND FOR CIV.R. 60(B) RELIEF WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE DISCRETE REQUESTS OR HOLDING A HEARING.”
{¶9} “III. THE COURT ERRED BY PERMITTING RELIANCE ON A
PURPORTED WILL NEVER ADMITTED TO PROBATE: ITEM 1 WRONGLY STATES
THE DECEDENT HAD NO CHILDREN, CONTRARY TO THE ADOPTION RECORD.”
{¶10} “IV. THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING
DISCOVERY AND AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON EXECUTION, CAPACITY, AND
AUTHENTICITY DESPITE OPERATIVE FACTS ALLEGED.”
{¶11} “V. THE COURT ERRED BY DENYING CIV.R. 60(B) RELIEF
WITHOUT A HEARING WHERE APPELLANT ALLEGED OPERATIVE FACTS
SATISFYING GTE.”
{¶12} “VI. THE SUMMARY DENIAL ENTRY WARRANTS REMAND FOR
CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ISSUES RAISED, TO
PERMIT MEANINGFUL REVIEW.”
I., III.
{¶13} Appellant’s first and third assignments of error claim error in the trial
court’s March 24, 2025, judgment entry which granted Appellee’s application for
summary release from administration.
{¶14} App.R. 4(A)(1) requires a notice of appeal to be filed within thirty days of
the filing of the entry the party wishes to appeal. In the instant case, Appellant filed his
notice of appeal from the March 24, 2025, judgment on December 3, 2025. Because the
notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the judgment granting Appellee’s
application for summary release from administration, the appeal is untimely as to
Appellant’s claims of error in that judgment entry.
{¶15} Appellant’s first and third assignments of error are overruled as untimely.
II., IV., V., VI.
{¶16} Appellant’s second, fourth, fifth and sixth assignments of error argue the
trial court erred in overruling his Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the March 24, 2025,
judgment without holding a hearing. We disagree.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶17} "A motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) is addressed to the
sound discretion of the trial court, and that court's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal
absent a showing of abuse of discretion." Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75, 77 (1987).
APPLICABLE LAW
{¶18} To succeed on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, the movant
must demonstrate: (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is
granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R.
60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable time, and, where
the grounds of relief are Civ.R. 60(B)(1), or (3), not more than one year after the
judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken. GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC
Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 150 (1976). "If any of these three requirements is not
met, the motion should be overruled." Rose Chevrolet v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 20
(1988).
{¶19} Civ.R. 60(B) sets forth five reasons to support relieving a party from a final
judgment:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(B);
(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party;
(4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior
judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or
it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective
application; or
(5) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment.
{¶20} The use of a Civ.R. 60(B) motion is generally reserved for issues that could
not have been raised in a direct appeal. Beyoglides v. Elmore, 2012-Ohio-3979, ¶ 17 (2d
Dist.) (“when a party merely repeats arguments that concern the merits of the case and
that could have been raised on appeal, relief under Civ.R. 60(B) is not available”); Key v.
Mitchell, 1998-Ohio-643 (finding that Civ.R. 60(B) relief was not available where the
party's “claims could have been raised in a timely appeal” from the trial court's judgment).
ANALYSIS
{¶21} In the instant case, Appellant failed to timely appeal the judgment entry
granting summary release from administration. Appellant filed his first motion for relief
from judgment on October 16, 2025. The trial court overruled the motion, finding no
entry admitting the will to probate was issued by the court, and Appellee was entitled to
the entirety of the decedent’s assets because Appellee paid the decedent’s funeral bill. The
trial court therefore found Appellant did not have a meritorious claim with which vacating
the entry would be appropriate, citing GTE Automatic Electric Company, supra.
Judgment Entry, 10/23/25. Appellant did not timely appeal this judgment entry.
{¶22} Appellant filed a “renewed” motion for relief from judgment on
November 18, 2025. The trial court overruled this motion for the reasons stated in the
October 23, 2025, judgment.
{¶23} We find Appellant’s renewed motion for relief from judgment is based on
the same arguments he made in his first motion for relief from judgment, and is a
substitute for appeal of the March 24, 2025, judgment granting summary release from
administration and the trial court’s October 23, 2025, judgment overruling his first
motion for relief from judgment.
{¶24} Further, we find no error in the trial court’s finding Appellant did not have
a meritorious defense to present to the summary release from administration. As noted
by the trial court, the will was never admitted into probate in the instant case but was
merely filed with the application for summary release from administration. R.C.
2113.03(B)(1) allows a person to apply for summary release from administration if the
value of the estate does not exceed the lesser of $5,000 or the amount of the decedent’s
funeral expenses, the person is not a surviving spouse, and the person has paid the funeral
expenses. R.C. 2113.031(C) orders the probate court to grant the order for summary
release from administration if certain conditions are met. The trial court found the
conditions were met in the instant case, granted the motion for summary release from
administration, and ordered the money in the decedent’s bank account to be paid to
Appellee, who paid the funeral expenses which exceeded the amount in the decedent’s
bank account. Appellant’s motion did not present a meritorious claim to the trial court’s
March 24, 2025, judgment, because even if he was the decedent’s adopted son and the
will was therefore inaccurate, Appellee would still have been entitled to summary release
from administration pursuant to R.C. 2113.031. Further, nothing in R.C. 2113.031 would have required the probate court to notify Appellant of the application for summary release
from administration even if he had been identified earlier as the son of the decedent.
{¶25} The second, fourth, fifth and sixth assignments of error are overruled.
CONCLUSION
{¶26} For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the
Probate Court of Stark County, Ohio, is Affirmed.
{¶27} Costs to Appellant.
By: Montgomery, J.
King, P.J. and
Hoffman, J. concur.