[Cite as Fried v. Abraitis, 2017-Ohio-746.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 104650

ADAM FRIED, FIDUCIARY OF THE ESTATE OF 

VLADA SOFIJA STANCIKAITE ABRAITIS 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

SARUNAS V. ABRAITIS, ET AL. 

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS 

JUDGMENT: 

DISMISSED 

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Probate Court Division 

Case No. 2015 ADV 203910 

BEFORE: Keough, A.J., Stewart, J., and Boyle, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 2, 2017 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 

Catherine M. Brady 

4417 W. 189th Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES 

For Adam Fried 

Adam M. Fried 

Martin T. Galvin 

Paul R. Shugar 

David J. Walters 

Reminger Co., L.P.A. 

1400 Midland Building 

101 Prospect Ave., West 

Cleveland, Ohio 44115 

For Vivian Abraitis-Newcomer

Randall M. Perla 

19443 Lorain Road 

Fairview Park, Ohio 44126
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Sarunas V. Abraitis (“Sarunas”),1 appeals from the 

trial court’s judgment that denied his motion for summary judgment, granted the 

complaint for declaratory judgment of plaintiff-appellee, Adam Fried (“Fried”), fiduciary 

of the estate of Vlada Sofija Stancikaite Abraitis (“Vlada”), and ordered that Sarunas had 

no right to take under Vlada’s will, and that any assets of the will be distributed to Vivian 

Abraitis-Newcomer (“Vivian”), as the personal representative of the estate of Vytautas 

Thomas Abraitis (“Vytautas”). Sarunas contends, for various reasons, that the trial court 

erred in denying his motion for summary judgment and in granting the complaint for 

declaratory judgment. However, because Vivian’s cross-claim for attorney fees and 

costs remains undecided, the trial court’s judgment does not constitute a final, appealable 

order. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal and must dismiss it. 

{¶2} On January 9, 2015, Fried, in his capacity as administrator of Vlada’s estate, 

filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Sarunas and Vivian, in her capacity as 

personal representative of the estate of Vytautas.2

 The complaint sought a declaration 

that Sarunas’s bad faith conduct had forfeited his interest under Vlada’s will pursuant to 

R.C. 2907.10, and directing the executor to distribute any assets of her estate to the 

 1

Sarunas died in January 2017. Pursuant to this court’s order dated February 14, 

2017,Catherine M. Brady, executor of Sarunas’s estate, has been substituted as defendant-appellant in 

this appeal. 

2

Vlada died in 2008; Sarunas and Vytautas were her sons. Vytautas died in 2011 without 

children; his ex-wife, Vivian, is the fiduciary of his estate. 
personal representative of Vytautas’s estate. 

{¶3} On January 26, 2015, Vivian filed an answer to the complaint, along with a 

cross-claim against Sarunas for attorney fees and court costs she had incurred as a result 

of Sarunas’s frivolous conduct and bad faith in the matter. Subsequently, on February 

13, 2015, Sarunas filed an answer to Vivian’s cross-claim, denying that he had engaged in 

frivolous conduct and asserting various affirmative defenses. 

{¶4} Sarunas then filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming the statute of 

limitations had expired on Fried’s forfeiture claim. After a hearing, the trial court issued 

its judgment entry (1) denying Sarunas’s motion for summary judgment, (2) finding that 

Sarunas’s intentional withholding of Vlada’s 1993 will deprived him of his right to take 

under the will as either a devisee or heir; (3) granting the complaint for declaratory 

judgment; and (4) ordering that any assets of the estate be distributed to Vivian, as the 

personal representative of Vytautas’s estate. The judgment entry made no mention, 

however, of Vivian’s cross-claim. This appeal followed. 

{¶5} An order must meet the requirements of both R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 

54(B), if applicable, to constitute a final, appealable order. Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent 

State Univ., 44 Ohio St.3d 86, 88, 541 N.E.2d 64 (1989). Under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1), an 

order is a final order if it “affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines 

the action and prevents a judgment.” To determine the action and prevent a judgment, 

the order “must dispose of the whole merits of the cause or some separate and distinct 

branch thereof and leave nothing for the determination of the court.” Hamilton Cty. Bd. 
of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities v. Professionals Guild of Ohio, 46 Ohio St.3d 

147, 153, 545 N.E.2d 1260 (1989). 

{¶6} Additionally, if the case involves multiple parties or multiple claims, the 

court’s order must meet the requirements of Civ.R. 54(B) to qualify as a final, appealable 

order. Under Civ.R. 54(B): 

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action whether as a 

claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, and whether arising 

out of the same or separate transactions, or when multiple parties are 

involved, the court may enter final judgment as to one or more but fewer 

than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that 

there is no just reason for delay. In the absence of a determination that 

there is no just reason for delay, any order or other form of decision, 

however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the 

rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, shall not terminate the 

action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of 

decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment 

adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of the parties. 

{¶7} Thus, absent the mandatory language that “there is no just reason for delay,” 

an order that does not dispose of all claims is subject to modification and is not final and 

appealable. Madfan, Inc. v. Makris, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102179, 2015-Ohio-1316, ¶ 

8, citing Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 96, 540 N.E.2d 1381 (1989); Deutsche Bank 

Natl. Co. v. Caldwell, 196 Ohio App.3d 636, 2011-Ohio-4508, 964 N.E.2d 1093, ¶ 9 (8th 

Dist.). 

{¶8} This case involves multiple claims: Fried’s claim for declaratory judgment 

and Vivian’s cross-claim for attorney fees and costs. Although the trial court resolved 

the complaint for declaratory judgment, it did not rule on Vivian’s cross-claim. 

Moreover, the trial court did not include in its judgment entry the mandatory Civ.R. 54(B) 
language that there was no just reason for delay. Thus, the court’s judgment is not a 

final, appealable order. Madfan at ¶ 10, citing Thomas v. Roush, 4th Dist. Gallia No. 

10CA9, 2011-Ohio-1705; Ranallo v. First Energy Corp., 11th Dist. Lake No. 

2003-L-201, 2004-Ohio-2918, ¶ 5; Limbert v. Gross, 2d Dist. Shelby No. 17-85-20, 1987 

Ohio App. LEXIS 6698, *2 (May 8, 1987). 

{¶9} Article IV, Section 3(B)(2) of the Ohio Constitution limits appellate 

jurisdiction to the review of final judgments. Without a final, appealable order, we lack 

jurisdiction to consider this appeal and, accordingly, must dismiss it. 

{¶10} Dismissed. 

It is ordered that the parties share equally the costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court 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. 

 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 

MELODY J. STEWART, J., and 

MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR