The Adobe Flash Player is required to view this multimedia interactive. Get it here.

Top court won’t hear estate case

Ohio justices’ decision means Mary Petticrew’s son will inherit a portion of her estate worth millions.

Manhunt results in arrest of convicted killer, suspect in Springfield assault
New 18 min. ago
Bus driver’s actions credited with saving students from injury
6:08 p.m.
Son of Beast won’t open this season
11:31 a.m.
Du convicted of attempted aggravated murder in WSU stabbing case
11:25 a.m.
Shawnee board to get help in search for next superintendent
11:15 a.m.
> More headlines

By Valerie Lough, Staff Writer Updated 9:40 PM Wednesday, December 2, 2009

SPRINGFIELD — The son of the late philanthropist Mary Petticrew will inherit a portion of his mother’s estate after the Ohio Supreme Court announced Wednesday, Dec. 2, that it will not review that case.

At issue was a residual portion of Petticrew’s estate that the attorney general’s office believed was intended to go into a charitable trust.

Lawyers for the office had asked the Supreme Court to review a decision rendered earlier this year by the 2nd District Court of Appeals, which ruled that Petticrew’s son, Thomas S. Flegge, was entitled to a portion of the estate’s residue.

“We believe it’s clear that Mary Petticrew wanted, through her will, to carry on the charitable giving that was so important to her in her lifetime,” said Ted Hart, spokesman for the attorney general’s office. “We’re disappointed by the court’s decision.”

Petticrew, a longtime philanthropist and Alzheimer’s advocate, died last year at the age of 95.

The appellate court decision overturned a 2008 ruling by the Clark County probate court, which stipulated that a charitable trust had been created and that Flegge was not entitled to the residue.

“No charitable intent was defined, therefore no charitable provisions were made, since there was no charity ... the balance of the estate passes to her son and second husband,” said Flegge’s attorney, Dan Harkins.

Half of the $9 million residue has already been awarded to Petticrew’s second husband, Dr. Louis Bourekis. He wasn’t listed in her will, but filed a claim as the surviving spouse.

Contact this reporter at (937) 328-0360 or vlough@coxohio.com.

Share this article

ADD COMMENT

Comments feed

OBTAIN YOUR FINANCIAL LOAN HERE:

Adriana Jackson loan lending firm is granting all loan seekers the opportunity to actualize your dream.
We offer both Personal loans,Commercial loans,Real estate loans,Mortgage loans,Debt free loans,Agricultural loans,Project/Forclosure loans,Educational laons etc to any interested person.
contact us through the below email address for your loan request.
jacksonadriana42@yahoo.com

jackson adriana
2:30 PM, 1/14/2010

REPORT ABUSE

Bottom line...the lawyers are disappointed because they can't scam and skim money from the estate. Think of all the legal fees they could collect over the years from a trust.

Kinky
8:20 AM, 12/3/2009

REPORT ABUSE

She could have, and I haven't read the Will but am curious to do so now (public record), specificially disinherited her husband and son. Although it makes me wonder the same as Christine and Cheryl. In Ohio, the surviving spouse still has rights and he just opted to take his. The son, on the other hand, I think is being a major a-hole to go after any residuary. Quite frankly, I think the son and hubby should both "man up" and give a great deal to Springfield charities anyway! Like 99% of it!

C.C.-Works for estate attorney
7:43 AM, 12/3/2009

REPORT ABUSE

If your not named in your mother's will, then there's a reason for that, don't you think? Hummmm........

Christine
10:01 PM, 12/2/2009

REPORT ABUSE

2nd Husband NOT LISTED IN HER WILL, but filed a claim......Hmmmmmm...And son left out till now.
Ya Think

Cheryl
12:32 PM, 12/2/2009

REPORT ABUSE

We welcome your comments. Please remember this is a public forum and behave appropriately. Your comments must conform to our visitor's agreement.