- 12 - $415,000 in damages, and that the probate judge’s allocation of damages effectively transferred the $1 million straight from the guardian’s interim financial holding account to the Management Trust without Clyde’s ever having control. We think the Commissioner is underestimating the importance of the Probate Court in deciding to whom the $1 million belonged. The Hickses’ lawyers were very careful in leaving the unallocated settlement funds with Society National until the beneficiaries were determined. This acknowledged the Probate Court’s broad discretionary authority as “superior guardian” of a minor under Ohio law. That status means that the Probate Court has the power and authority to control the actions of the minor’s guardian and act directly to ensure that the minor’s best interests are being considered. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. sec. 2111.50 (Anderson 2002). It also means that the Probate Court has to approve any settlement which the minor’s guardian reaches before it can take effect. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. sec. 2111.18 (2007). Because of this essential role the Probate Court plays under Ohio law, we hold that the $1 million in question didn’t belong to anyone until the Probate Court said it did. The Commissioner’s attack doesn’t end with that quibble about possession of the settlement proceeds under Ohio law. He also argues that the allocation was a sham. This is itself a problem because the statute and regulation don’t tell us toPage: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007