Ohio R. Superi. Ct. 73
Guardian's compensation shall be set by local rule.
A guardian shall itemize all expenses relative to the guardianship of the ward and shall not charge fees or costs in excess of those approved by the probate division of a court of common pleas.
Additional compensation for extraordinary services, reimbursement for expenses incurred and compensation of a guardian of a person only may be allowed upon an application setting forth an itemized statement of the services rendered and expenses incurred and the amount for which compensation is applied. The probate division of a court of common pleas may require the application to be set for hearing with notice given to interested persons in accordance with Civ.R. 73(E).
The compensation of co-guardians in the aggregate shall not exceed the compensation that would have been allowed to one guardian acting alone.
The probate division of a court of common pleas may deny or reduce compensation if there is a delinquency in the filing of an inventory or account, or after hearing, the court finds the guardian has not faithfully discharged the duties of the office.
Ohio. R. Superi. Ct. 73
Commentary (October 1, 1997)
This rule is analogous to former C.P. Sup. R. 42. Division (A) has been amended to delete reference to Sup. R. 75.
Division (B) has been amended to clarify the requirements and procedure for extraordinary compensation of a guardian of the estate and for compensation of a guardian of a person who is not also the guardian of the estate. The procedure parallels the procedure that previously was in place for extraordinary compensation to an executor or administrator. Division (B) incorporates the requirements of former C.P. Sup. R. 42(C), which has been deleted. The reference to service in accordance with Civil Rule 4.1 has been deleted, since service is controlled by Civil Rule 73.
Division (C) has been relettered and amended grammatically.
Division (D) has been relettered. The first sentence, requiring a computation of the guardian fee to be attached to the account has been deleted in that the computation has often been previously filed thus causing a duplicity of filings. The second sentence has been deleted in that the compensation is set by local rule as required in division (A). The statement requiring the filing of the local rule with the Supreme Court has been deleted in that the filing is required by Sup. R. 5(A) and Sup. R. 75.