[Cite as In re Estate of Abraitis, 2017-Ohio-5577.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 104816

 

IN RE: ESTATE OF VLADA SOFIA 

STANCIKAITE ABRAITIS

[Appeal by Attorney Catherine M. Brady] 

 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

 

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Probate Division 

Case No. 2011 EST 172533 

BEFORE: Stewart, J., Kilbane, P.J., and E.T. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 29, 2017 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

For Catherine M. Brady

Catherine M. Brady 

4417 West 189th Street 

Cleveland, OH 44135 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

For Adam M. Fried

Adam M. Fried 

Martin T. Galvin 

Paul R. Shugar 

David J. Walters 

Reminger Co., L.P.A. 

1400 Midland Building 

101 Prospect Avenue, West 

Cleveland, OH 44115 

For Vivian Abraitis-Newcomer

Randall M. Perla 

19443 Lorain Road 

Fairview Park, OH 44126 

Also Listed

Egidijus K. Marcinkevicius 

A. Sirviaitis & Associates 

880 East 185th Street 

Cleveland, OH 44119 
MELODY J. STEWART, J.: 

{¶1} After finding that appellant-attorney Catherine M. Brady engaged in frivolous 

conduct with respect to the administration of an estate, the probate court ordered her to 

pay attorney fees and expenses to appellee Adam Fried, the successor fiduciary to the 

estate of Vlada Sofija Stancikaite Abraitis.1

 The nine assignments of error on appeal 

collectively challenge whether the court properly determined that sanctions were 

warranted and whether the amount of sanctions was reasonable. 

{¶2} This case has a long history that belies the simplicity of the facts. In 2004, 

Abraitis was named guardian for his mother, Vlada, but was later removed. Vlada died 

in 2008. No will was offered into probate at that time. 

{¶3} In June 2011, the Internal Revenue Service issued Abraitis a final notice of 

intent to levy on assets he held in an investment account under his own name and social 

security number in order to satisfy his tax obligations for prior years. Abraitis claimed 

that the proceeds of the investment account had been deposited into the account by his 

 1

 The court also found that Brady’s client, Sarunas Abraitis, engaged in frivolous conduct, 

and imposed sanctions jointly and severally against him. Abraitis filed a separate appeal, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 104822, and that appeal was consolidated with this one. Sarunas died in January 

2017. Brady gave notice that she had been appointed executor of Sarunas’s estate and we 

substituted her as the party appellant in appeal No. 104822. We then received notice that Brady had 

been removed as the executor of Sarunas’s estate and replaced by Egidijus Marcinkevicius, whom we 

substituted as a party on behalf of Sarunas’s estate. Marcinkevicius filed a notice of voluntarily 

dismissal of appeal No. 104822. The notice of dismissal did not state that it had been joined by the 

estate of Vlada Sofia Stancikaite Abraitis, so we treat it as a motion to dismiss the appeal under 

App.R. 28 and grant it contemporaneous with the announcement of our decision herein. See In re 

Estate of Abraitis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104822, motion No. 506200. 
mother. Abraitis argued to the IRS that the investment account belonged to his mother 

and that the probate court “had ruled that all of the assets held by him originated from and 

were the sole property of V. Abraitis” and that they were no longer under his control. 

Abraitis v. United States, N.D.Ohio No. 1:11-cv-2077, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123073, *3 

(June 12, 2012). Those tax matters were resolved adversely to Abraitis with a notice of 

levy. A final disposition of the tax case occurred in March 2013 after the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected his appeal. See Abraitis v. United States, 

709 F.3d 641 (6th Cir.2013). 

{¶4} With the tax matter finally adjudicated, Abraitis offered into probate a will 

that his mother executed in 1978. The will named Abraitis and his brother as equal 

beneficiaries of the estate. The court named Abraitis as the executor of the estate. An 

inventory of the estate listed a single asset — the investment account that the IRS ruled 

belonged to Abraitis — and noted that the funds were the subject of state2

 and federal tax 

proceedings. 

{¶5} Abraitis’s brother died in Florida in November 2013. The brother’s will 

named his ex-wife as his personal representative and sole beneficiary. One day after a 

Florida court made the ex-wife the personal representative of the estate (and less than 

three weeks after the brother’s death), Abraitis filed an application to probate a new will 

 2

 The state of Ohio had likewise issued income-tax assessments against Abraitis. See 

Abraitis v. Testa, 137 Ohio St.3d 285, 2013-Ohio-4725, 998 N.E.2d 1149. 

 
— one that his mother executed in 1993. The 1993 will named Abraitis as the sole heir; 

the brother would take under the will only if he survived Abraitis. Abraitis then filed a 

motion to correct the estate inventory he filed with the court to remove the investment 

account from the estate on grounds that the investment account was “misidentified as an 

asset” and belonged to him. The court noted that removing the investment account from 

the estate inventory would reduce the estate assets to zero. In response to the motion to 

correct the inventory, the ex-wife filed a separate action to contest the 1993 will. 

Abraitis-Newcomer v. Abraitis, Cuyahoga P.C. No. 2104 ADV 195000. 

{¶6} The court removed Abraitis as executor of the estate and named Fried the 

successor executor. The court found that Abraitis “acknowledged that he was aware in 

2011 when he opened his mother’s estate that there was a later will that was not presented 

for probate.” The court also found that Abraitis had “no explanation for why he did not 

probate the most recent will at that time but that he put it away for later.” And the court 

found that when Abraitis was asked what made him decide to apply for admission of the 

1993 will, Abraitis said that “he did it because his brother had died” and he wanted to 

prevent the brother’s ex-wife from being a beneficiary of his mother’s estate. 

{¶7} In addition to removing Abraitis as executor of his mother’s estate, the court 

ordered him to deposit the investment account funds into an estate bank account. 

Abraitis not only failed to comply with the order, he refused to testify at a subsequent 

contempt hearing on the advice of his attorney, Brady. The court found Abraitis in 
contempt and ordered him to serve ten days in jail. Despite the punishment, it appears 

that Abraitis never deposited any money into an estate account. 

{¶8} These facts spawned a multitude of motions and filings in the probate court, 

this court, and the Ohio Supreme Court. As relevant here, Fried filed a complaint in the 

probate court alleging that Abraitis concealed estate assets. Abraitis defended by 

claiming that the IRS determined that the estate assets belonged to him, so he had no 

choice but to amend the inventory. The court rejected that assertion when finding 

Abraitis guilty of concealing estate assets. It found it unsurprising that the IRS 

determined Abraitis owned the investment account because the account was “listed in his 

name for all of the relevant tax years. What Abraitis cannot explain is how the 

[investment account] came to be in his name and from what sources the account was 

funded.” The court’s question about how the investment account was funded arose 

because Abraitis testified that “he has not worked or had taxable income from 

employment for many years, if ever.” This suggested that he could not have been the 

source of the money: “What is clear however, is that Abraitis has never had taxable 

income from employment and therefore the monies that funded the [investment] account 

got there one way or another from his father, his mother, or both.” 

{¶9} Following the court’s ruling that Abraitis concealed estate assets, Fried filed a 

motion for attorney fees against Brady under both Civ.R. 11 and R.C. 2323.51. The 

motion asserted that Brady and Abraitis frivolously listed the investment account as an 

estate asset when they initially opened the estate. When they amended the estate 
inventory to list the investment account as an asset that belonged to Abraitis and not the 

estate, Fried maintained that he was forced to litigate their new position that the money 

belonged to Abraitis. In addition, Fried maintained that Brady acted in bad faith by filing 

the new will. The motion also noted that Abraitis was in violation of the court’s order to 

return the investment account proceeds to the estate, a failure that forced the estate to file 

a separate motion seeking relief from the concealment of the asset. The motion claimed 

that the estate had incurred reasonable attorney fees of $104,485 along with expenses of 

$1,214.59, to defend the frivolous conduct. 

{¶10} The court granted the motion for attorney fees, making the following 

findings of fact: 

The Court finds that as a result of Sarunas Abraitis ’ [sic] actions in this 

Estate case, all of which were done by and through his attorney, Catherine 

Brady, Fried was required to file two separate adversarial actions including 

a concealment action and a complaint for declaratory judgment. The Court 

further finds that Fried has also been required to defend against multiple 

appeals. 

 * * * 

The Court further finds that it has set out in other entries the factual history 

of this case which can be summarized as the concerted effort by Abraitis 

and Brady to convince the taxing authorities that funds listed in the 

inventory of this Estate belonged to the decedent only to argue to this Court 

that the money belongs to Abraitis after the tax cases were resolved. 

The Court finds that the actions taken by Abraitis and Brady, from the filing 

of the original inventory through the filing of several accounts, applications 

for attorney fees and attempted distributions are contrary to their current 

argument that the funds at issue belong to Abraitis. The Court finds that 

the arbitrary positions and actions of both have caused irreparable harm to 

the Estate and have resulted in extraordinary fees. 
{¶11} After finding Fried’s itemized statement of billable hours and rates charged 

reasonable, the court awarded attorney fees of $104,485 and expenses of $1,214.59. 

{¶12} Civ.R. 11 states that “[e]very pleading, motion, or other document of a party 

represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record * * *.” An 

attorney’s signature “constitutes a certificate by the attorney or party that the attorney or 

party has read the document; that to the best of the attorney’s or party’s knowledge, 

information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for 

delay.” 

{¶13} R.C. 2323.51(B)(1) applies more broadly than Civ.R. 11 and permits the 

court to award attorney fees and costs to any party adversely affected by frivolous 

conduct of another party or that party’s attorney, even if that conduct is not related to a 

pleading, motion, or other document. “Frivolous conduct” is defined by R.C. 

2323.51(A)(2) as, among other things, conduct that serves to harass or maliciously injure 

another party to a civil action; conduct that is not warranted under existing law and cannot 

be supported by a good faith argument for an extension or reversal of existing law; or 

conduct that consists of allegations or factual contentions that have no evidentiary support 

or are not likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further 

investigation. 

{¶14} Civ.R. 11 uses a “subjective standard” of “bad faith” that goes beyond mere 

bad judgment; it sanctions conduct amounting to “dishonest purpose,” “moral obliquity,” 

“a breach of a known duty through some motive of interest or ill will,” or “partakes of the 
nature of fraud * * * with an actual intent to mislead or deceive another.” State ex rel. 

Bardwell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 127 Ohio St.3d 202, 2010-Ohio-5073, 937 

N.E.2d 1274, ¶ 8. “Frivolous conduct, as contemplated by R.C. 2323.51(A)(2)(a), is 

judged under an objective, rather than a subjective standard * * *.” State ex rel. 

DiFranco v. S. Euclid, 144 Ohio St.3d 571, 2015-Ohio-4915, 45 N.E.3d 987, ¶ 15, citing 

State ex rel. Striker v. Cline, 130 Ohio St.3d 214, 2011-Ohio-5350, 957 N.E.2d 19, ¶ 21. 

{¶15} Under both Civ.R. 11 and R.C. 2323.51, we review a trial court’s decision to 

award sanctions for an abuse of discretion. If competent, credible evidence exists to 

support an award of sanctions, the award must stand. Striker at ¶ 9; DiFranco at ¶ 13. 

In addition, the abuse of discretion standard means that we cannot substitute our judgment 

for that of the trial court. State ex rel. Bardwell at ¶ 9, citing State ex rel. Grein v. Ohio 

State Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys., 116 Ohio St.3d 344, 2007-Ohio-6667, 879 N.E.2d 

195, ¶ 1. 

{¶16} Brady argues, without relevant citation to authority, that the probate court 

had no jurisdiction to award sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 because the statute applies 

only to “civil” actions and probate court matters are “special proceedings.” 

{¶17} Probate matters are “special proceedings” as that term is used for purposes 

of the final order statute, R.C. 2505.02. Schwartz v. Tedrick, 2016-Ohio-1218, 61 

N.E.3d 797, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.). But basically, probate matters are civil in nature because 

they do not involve the kind of penal sanctions imposed on criminal defendants. Hill v. 

Urbana, 79 Ohio St.3d 130, 137, 679 N.E.2d 1109 (1997). R.C. 2323.51(A)(1) 
references “conduct” in the context of filing a “civil action.” Probate courts have, 

without question as to their authority to do so, awarded sanctions for frivolous conduct 

under authority of R.C. 2323.51. See, e.g., Soter v. Beyoglides (In re of the 

Guardianship of Lewis), 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22252, 2008-Ohio-3486; In re 

Guardianship of Wernick, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-263, 2006-Ohio-5950. The 

argument that the probate court had no authority to impose sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 

is baseless. 

{¶18} We first consider whether the court erred by imposing sanctions against 

Brady under R.C. 2323.51. 

{¶19} When granting the motion for sanctions, the court found that Brady engaged 

in frivolous conduct that it summarized as “the concerted effort * * * to convince the 

taxing authorities that funds listed in the inventory of the Estate belonged to the decedent 

only to argue to this Court that the money belongs to Abraitis after the tax cases were 

resolved.” 

{¶20} Brady maintains that she acted properly by listing the investment account as 

an estate asset at the same time that Abraitis was arguing to the IRS that the investment 

account belonged to his mother; she claims it was only after the IRS determined that the 

investment account actually belonged to Abraitis that she filed a new inventory to reflect 

that determination. 

{¶21} This argument ignores that Brady filed court documents representing that 

the investment account belonged to Abraitis long before she filed the initial estate 
inventory listing the investment account as an estate asset. The court heard undisputed 

evidence that Abraitis was the only person named on the investment account. Nor was 

there any question that the investment account had been funded by the proceeds of 

another investment account held by both Abraitis and his mother as joint tenants. 

Abraitis came into sole possession of the mother’s investment account “by way of a 

power of attorney he held from the mother.” This fact had been conceded in a January 

2013 motion to correct the inventory which stated that the funds in the mother’s 

investment account were “transferred outright to Sarunas Abraitis” in 2003. This 

statement contradicted a position maintained in the IRS matter where it was claimed that 

the money belonged to the mother’s estate — the district court found that Abraitis 

represented to the IRS that “the Cuyahoga County Probate Court had ruled that all of the 

assets held by him originated from and were the sole property of [his mother].” Abraitis 

v. United States, N.D.Ohio No. 1:11-cv-2077, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123073, *3 (June 

12, 2012). The IRS rejected that position because “the assets in question were in an 

account under Abraitis’s name and social security number * * *.” Id. at *4. 

{¶22} Abraitis reaffirmed his sole ownership of the investment account in a 

November 2013 complaint for a writ of prohibition filed in this court. That complaint 

alleged that a guardianship over Abraitis’s mother was closed in March 2009, “with no 

assets remaining.” See Abraitis v. Gallagher, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101037, 

2014-Ohio-2987, complaint at ¶ 9. The record shows that Abraitis was, for a time, his 
mother’s guardian. If the investment account truly belonged to his mother, the 

guardianship estate inventory would have reflected that fact and listed it as an estate asset. 

{¶23} It bears noting here that Abraitis was removed from his position as guardian 

over his mother and was later sued by the successor guardian for concealment of assets. 

The concealment case settled in February 2005. A January 2014 motion to correct the 

inventory stated that the concealment case determined that the mother’s account “was an 

asset owned by Sarunas Abraitis, outright.” 

{¶24} Brady represented Abraitis throughout all of the proceedings we have 

described. Those proceedings spawned litigation with the IRS, in the federal courts, and 

at all levels of the state courts. The legal arguments offered by Brady in these matters 

have been criticized as “specious (and often incomprehensible),” Abraitis v. Testa, 137 

Ohio St.3d 285, 2013-Ohio-4725, 998 N.E.2d 1149, at ¶ 4, to doing “little to clarify 

Abraitis’s position[.]” Abraitis v. United States, N.D.Ohio No. 1:11-cv-2077, 2012 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 123073, *5 (June 12, 2012). And the probate court could agree with the 

district court’s finding that Brady raised “arguments that contradict positions taken in 

other pleadings[.]” Id. The court acted within reason to find that Brady acted frivolously 

by taking inconsistent positions when representing Abraitis in the estate matters. 

{¶25} We reach a similar conclusion with respect to the award of sanctions levied 

against Brady under Civ.R. 11. 

{¶26} The preceding discussion shows that Brady was subjectively aware that she 

filed an estate inventory which claimed that the investment account was an estate asset 
even though she claimed years earlier that the money in the investment account had been 

transferred to Abraitis. To be sure, at the time she filed the estate inventory, she was 

representing Abraitis in tax proceedings with the IRS in which she similarly argued that 

the mother owned the investment account. But as subsequent filings in the probate court 

made clear, Brady asserted as early as 2005 that Abraitis was the sole owner of the 

investment account — she claimed in a January 2014 motion to correct the inventory that 

the concealment action filed by the mother’s successor guardian “determined that the 

asset was owned by Sarunas Abraitis, outright, and that matter was dismissed with 

prejudice at plaintiff’s costs [sic].” Brady doubled-down on this assertion by stating that 

the settlement agreement also addressed and settled the ownership of the investment 

account in his favor. All of this occurred years before Abraitis opened his mother’s 

estate and filed an initial inventory claiming that the investment account was an estate 

asset. 

{¶27} Brady filed inventories and motions that she knew were unsupported by the 

record. Those acts spawned needless and expensive litigation that required Fried’s 

response. The court acted rationally by finding that Brady’s inconsistencies with the 

positions she took during the litigation amounted to bad faith. 

{¶28} We next address Brady’s arguments relating to the amount of fees and costs 

awarded. She first argues that the court erred by awarding Fried attorney fees and 

expenses for professional services rendered by him in our court. We reject this assertion 

because R.C. 2323.51(B)(1) states that “[t]he court may assess and make an award to any 
party to the civil action or appeal who was adversely affected by frivolous conduct[.]” 

(Emphasis added.) See also Bilbaran Farm, Inc. v. Bakerwell, Inc., 5th Dist. Knox No. 

14CA07, 2014-Ohio-4017, ¶ 35. 

{¶29} Brady next argues that the court erred by awarding Fried his expenses. She 

maintains that Fried failed to authenticate or properly introduce into evidence the claimed 

expenses. But Brady failed to object on this basis at the hearing and has forfeited the 

argument on appeal. 

{¶30} Brady complains that the court erred by failing to require Fried to verify the 

amounts requested under oath. We have rejected this type of argument in the context of 

Civ.R. 11, finding that the trial court has no obligation to hear sworn evidence in 

awarding attorney fees. Brady v. Hickman & Lowder Co., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 

83041 and 83989, 2004-Ohio-4745, ¶ 30, citing R.C.H. Co. v. 3-J Machining Serv., 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 82671, 2004-Ohio-57. 

{¶31} Brady argues that the amount of attorney fees awarded “shocks the 

conscience.” Certainly, the amount of attorney fees ordered are high, but they were 

substantiated in Fried’s fee statement. As we earlier noted, Brady has relentlessly 

litigated estate issues in this case. By doing so, she forced Fried to respond. This 

greatly escalated the number of hours he billed. 

{¶32} Brady also argues that Fried failed to “mitigate damages.” She 

characterizes Fried as engaging in “a blitzkrieg of expensive countermeasures while 

ignoring some of the basic tasks associated with being an administrator” and that he failed 
to contact Brady “to strike deficient filings[.]” Brady cites no authority for the proposition 

that Fried had an obligation to mitigate his fees. And it is difficult to understand why 

Brady thinks that efforts by Fried to minimize the cost of litigation would have been 

successful. The conduct at the heart of the court’s decision to award attorney fees was 

existential to the manner in which Abraitis and Brady pursued their claims. 

{¶33} Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the probate 

division to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

______________________________________________ 

MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR