COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72473 IN THE MATTER OF: : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND EDDIE MAE EDWARDS : OPINION : (APPEAL BY KEITH EDWARDS : NEXT OF KIN) : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MARCH 19, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Court of Common Pleas Probate Court Division Case No. 1072570 JUDGMENT: DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: NELLI JOHNSON, ESQ. KEITH EDWARDS, PRO SE 401 Euclid Avenue, Suite 355 No. 211-800 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2402 T.C.I., 13 East 133 B P.O. Box 901 Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430 -2- DYKE, P.J.: Appellant, Keith Edwards, next of kin of Eddie Mae Edwards, is appealing the decision of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, denying his Motion to Set Aside the Appointment of the Successor Guardianship (sic) and Reconsideration of Removal of Succeeded Guardian and Return of Ward to the Estate. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal. Eddie May Edwards was found incompetent and her son, Jordan Edwards, was appointed guardian. Appellant, Keith Edwards, another son of Eddie May Edwards, was duly notified of the application for guardianship. The County Department of Senior and Adult Services moved to remove Jordan Edwards as guardian, for the reason of neglect of the ward. The sheriff served Jordan with notice of this motion and the scheduled hearing date, September 5, 1996. According to the referee's report dated March 31, 1997, the following occurred: Jordan appeared before the magistrate on September 5, 1996. The matter was reset for October 9, 1996, to give Jordan an opportunity to find nursing home placement for his mother. On October 9, all the parties agreed to reset the hearing to October 18, 1996. Jordan did not appear at the October 18 hearing. The court's journal entry, dated October 18, 1996, ordered that Jordan Edwards be removed as guardian. The journal entry stated that two individuals, a registered nurse and a social worker, testified that the ward was receiving inadequate care and -3- the ward was in a life-threatening situation. On October 25, 1996, the court appointed Nelli Johnson as successor guardian. On January 8, 1997, Jordan Edwards filed his Motion to Set Aside the Appointment of the Successor Guardianship and Reconsi- deration of Removal of Succeeded Guardian and Return of Ward to the Estate (hereinafter referred to as motion to set aside ). All five of the next of kin, including appellant, filed similar motions. These motions argued that Jordan Edwards, appellant and the other next of kin did not receive notice of (1) the hearing to remove the guardian or (2) the appointment of a successor guardian. Keith Edwards also moved to stay the proceedings of the Complaint of Guardian of Authority to Sell Real Estate. On April 21, 1997, the trial court denied the motions to set aside and the motion to stay the proceedings. Appellant's notice of appeal only appeals the order denying the motion to set aside. Appellee, Nelli Johnson, the guardian, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. She argued that the order denying the stay was not a final appealable order. Appellant did not appeal the order denying the stay. In any case, we agree with appellee that the order denying the stay was not a final appealable order. See R.C. 2505.02. Appellee asserts that the appeal should be dismissed because appellant lacks standing to appeal the denial of his motion to set aside. Every appellant must have an interest in the subject matter of the litigation, which interest is immediate and pecuniary. A remote consequence, a future, contingent or speculative interest is -4- not sufficient. Ohio Contract Carriers v. Public Utilities Com. (1942), 140 Ohio St. 160. To have standing to appeal, an appellant must show his rights are adversely affected. Tschantz v. Ferguson (1989), 49 Ohio App.3d 9. Appellant did not have a right to notice of the proceedings to remove the guardian and appoint a successor guardian. R.C. 2109.24 states: The court may remove any such fiduciary, after giving the fiduciary not less than ten days' notice, for . . . neglect of duty . . . Neither R.C. 2109.24 nor any other section of the Revised Code mandates that the next of kin receive notice of proceedings to remove a guardian. See In re Trust of Marshall (1946), 78 Ohio App. 1 (Notice to the trustee of removal proceedings was required, but notice to the remaindermen was not). Neither was appellant entitled to notice of the appointment of a successor guardian. See In re Guardianship of Wisner (1951), 154 Ohio St. 578.1Appellant asserts that R.C. 2111.04 entitles him to such notice. R.C. 2111.04(A) states: . . . no guardian of the person, estate or both shall be appointed until at least seven days after the probate court has caused written notice, setting forth the time an place of the hearing, to be served as follows: (2) In the appointment of the guardian of an incompetent, notice shall be served: . . . 1 Appeal not allowed for want of a debatable constitutional question. Headnote states that notice is not required when appointing a successor guardian to replace a deceased guardian. -5- (b) Upon the next of kin of the person for whom the appointment is sought who are known to reside in this state. The requirements of R.C. 2111.04 are met if notice is given that the jurisdiction of the court has been invoked on the question of whether or not a guardian should be appointed. In re Guardianship of Bireley (1944), 41 Ohio Law Abs. 601, 606, In the Matter of Sechler(Dec. 24, 1996), Franklin App. No. 96APF03-359, unreported, In re Metzenbaum (July 31, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 72052, unreported. Notice need not be given that a second person has applied for the position of guardian, even if the second person is appointed guardian. Bireley, supra. The identity of the appointee does not effect the substantive rights of the ward. Bireley, Sechler, Metzenbaum, supra. If the substantive rights of the ward are not effected, the substantive rights of the next of kin are not effected either. Furthermore, the probate court does not lose jurisdiction upon removal of a guardian, and the court retains jurisdiction to appoint a successor guardian. See Netting v. Strickland (1899), 18 O.C.C. 136, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 841, 53 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1984 Supp. 1997) Guardian and Ward, Sections 33 and 202. R.C. 2109.26, which provides for the appointment of successor guardians, does not require notice to the next of kin. No other section of the Revised Code requires such notice. Ohio law does not require that notice be given to the next of kin of the appointment of the successor guardian. -6- Appellant asserts that he has a right under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to notice of the removal proceedings, and notice of the appointment of a successor. The next of kin's interest in the appointment of a guardian is not a liberty or property interest as defined in constitutional jurisprudence. In re Guardianship of Bissmeyer (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 42. We conclude that appellant had no right to notice of the removal proceedings or to notice of appointment of a successor guardian. This appeal is dismissed for lack of standing. -7- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant, its costs herein taxed. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions. MCMONAGLE, J., AND CORRIGAN, J., CONCUR. ANN DYKE RESIDING JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App. R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App. R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .