Your state’s pack. New issues arrive periodically on Mondays. Bookmark it. I built this for the Ohio T&E solo who knows its own Ohio Revised Code Title 21 (Ohio has not adopted the UPC) cold but still loses an afternoon a week hunting the current homestead number, the Next Generation MyCare (Ohio Medicaid / ODM) slot posture, whether the latest Ohio Board of Professional Conduct opinion changes how you scope an engagement, or whether a recent Ohio Court of Appeals decision just moved the law on capacity, undue influence, or a trustee’s duties. What’s below is what mattered in Ohio lately — the week’s developments and the recent rulings from the bench.
For licensed attorneys. This pack is general legal information and professional commentary for practicing attorneys — it is not legal advice, does not apply to any specific matter, and creates no attorney-client relationship. Verify every authority against the cited primary source before relying on it with a client. Published by Mike Moss, a Utah-admitted attorney, as an AI-enablement information product; it is not an offer of legal services and is not a representation that the author is admitted to practice in your jurisdiction.
Three developments from the last several weeks that I think actually matter to an Ohio T&E solo. Each one has a read that lands on your practice specifically — and each one comes with the citation so you can verify the detail yourself before you use it with a client.
The Supreme Court of Ohio’s restructuring amendments took effect July 1, 2026 (the General Assembly filed no disapproval resolution): most probate rules — Sup.R. 50-65 and 67-79 — transferred into new Civ.R. 73 through 73.9, the standard probate forms moved to the Appendix of Forms, and Civ.R. 1 gained an exception recognizing probate’s unique procedures.
Every filing template, local-form library, and brief that cites the old Sup.R. probate rules or forms is now citing a relocated rule — run a find-and-replace across your Ohio probate precedents before your next filing, or a clerk will bounce it.
Amendments to the Ohio Rules of Practice & Procedure (probate restructuring), eff. July 1, 2026 — Sup.R. 50-65 & 67-79 → Civ.R. 73-73.9 · courtnewsohio.gov
ODM’s July 1, 2026 provider bulletin confirms Next Generation MyCare (dual-eligible LTC managed care) rolled out to nine more counties July 1 — Holmes, Tuscarawas, Carroll, Jefferson, Coshocton, Harrison, Belmont, Guernsey, Muskingum — with the final eight (Hocking, Perry, Morgan, Noble, Monroe, Washington, Athens, Meigs) set for August 1, completing statewide coverage. This supersedes the prior “61 counties as of May 1” posture.
If you have dual-eligible LTC clients in the newly-added counties, their care now runs through a MyCare plan — check plan enrollment and network before advising on facility placement or provider continuity.
Ohio Dep’t of Medicaid, Provider Bulletin (July 1, 2026) — Next Generation MyCare county rollout · medicaid.ohio.gov
Next Generation MyCare, Ohio Medicaid’s managed-care program for dual-eligible long-term-care members, expanded to 61 counties as of May 1, 2026, with statewide coverage expected August 1, 2026 — consolidating Medicaid/Medicare LTC and HCBS under four managed-care plans.
For an Ohio T&E solo with Medicaid clients, the setting and plan a client is enrolled in is in flux as MyCare scales out county by county. Estate recovery under ORC 5162.21 reaches Ohio’s expanded estate definition (certain non-probate assets via the ORC 2117.061 process), so deed and beneficiary-designation planning stays central even as the delivery system changes.
Ohio Department of Medicaid · Next Generation MyCare · managedcare.medicaid.ohio.gov
Decisions that bind an Ohio practitioner — Ohio’s appellate courts and the federal courts covering Ohio, including the U.S. Sixth Circuit — read for what actually changes how you draft, advise, and plan. Trusts and estates broadly, not Medicaid alone: wills and capacity, undue influence, fiduciary duty, trust construction, and estate recovery. One read, the holding, and the official cite.
A decedent left three daughters — two biological, one adopted — and a will naming no fiduciary. One daughter deposited the will, applied to probate it, and was appointed fiduciary; the will’s three witnesses included her and her sister, both of whom were also takers. The same day it issued her letter of authority, the probate court sua sponte ordered her to show cause within thirty days on two grounds: that her Form 1.0 listed only two of the three daughters as vested beneficiaries, and that under R.C. 2107.15 a devise to a person who is one of only two witnesses is void, raising whether the will would survive if the interested witnesses’ signatures were stripped out under Rogers v. Helmes. She briefed both points. The probate court then vacated the letter of authority on neither ground — it said only that she was not named fiduciary in the will and that no hearing on the appointment had occurred — and ordered her to account for assets marshalled and to preserve the status quo. The Second District affirmed, holding the narrow question was only whether removal to hold a hearing was an abuse of discretion, and that R.C. 2109.24’s ten-day notice requirement was satisfied by the thirty-day briefing window. Judge Tucker dissented: she was never given an opportunity to contest the actual stated reason for removal, and the promised future hearing cannot cure it, because an order appointing a fiduciary is not a final appealable order.
The trap here is procedural and it is one a solo can walk into on a routine estate. Because the removal order rested on a ground never briefed, the fiduciary had no chance to answer the reason she actually lost — and, as the dissent points out, an appointment order is not final and appealable, so the later hearing gives her nothing to appeal from. If your client is removed, insist on the record identifying the ground and on an opportunity to respond to that ground, and preserve the due process objection expressly; the dissent is the roadmap. Two drafting notes ride along. Name a fiduciary in the will — the entire episode traces to a will that named none, in an estate with three heirs who do not agree. And do not let beneficiaries witness the will: R.C. 2107.15 voids a devise to a person who is one of only two witnesses, and even though the court never reached that issue, it is what drew the probate court’s attention on day one.
In re Estate of David Russell Murphy, 2026-Ohio-3141, C.A. No. 30786 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. Aug. 14, 2026) — affirmed (Tucker, J., dissenting).
Decades after musician Roger Troutman died intestate, the estate’s current administrator moved to vacate and reconsider an April 2003 judgment that had determined Troutman’s twelve heirs. The probate court granted the motion on its ‘inherent authority.’ The Second District reversed: the 2003 heirship entry was a valid final judgment — voidable at most, not void — so the inherent power to vacate void judgments did not apply. Because the administrator never sought relief under Civ.R. 60(B) (and relied on no statute such as R.C. 2109.35(B)), vacating the judgment was an abuse of discretion; and a court cannot ‘reconsider’ a valid final judgment at all — any such order is a legal nullity.
For Ohio estate administration, a final heirship determination has teeth: to reopen it you need a proper Civ.R. 60(B) motion (a meritorious claim, a listed ground, filed within a reasonable time — within one year for mistake, new evidence, or fraud) or a specific statutory basis such as R.C. 2109.35(B). A court’s ‘inherent authority’ reaches only truly void judgments, not ones a party simply believes are wrong. Don’t count on reconsideration to fix a stale heirship order — and when you obtain one, the finality cuts in your favor.
In re Estate of Troutman, 2026-Ohio-855 (Ohio Ct. App., 2d Dist. Mar. 13, 2026) — Ohio Court of Appeals opinion. · SUPREMECOURT.OHIO.GOV · official opinion
This slot holds the next significant trusts-and-estates or estate-recovery decision from Ohio’s appellate courts or the federal courts covering Ohio. The lane reads each opinion before it lands here, and reads-and-discards matters that aren’t trusts-and-estates — criminal, family, commercial/LLC fiduciary, tax, and cases where an estate or trust is only a party. When the trailing window has no further ruling, this row says so plainly rather than inventing one.
Nothing further to re-paper from the bench this period; controlling authority is otherwise unchanged.
This week in Ohio for the T&E solo with Ohio Medicaid clients: the developments from the Ohio State Bar Association (Estate Planning, Trust & Probate Law Section) and the Ohio Department of Medicaid that actually moved your practice this period — each one primary-source verified.
Bar and Medicaid changes land on different schedules and aren’t indexed by practice focus. Every item here was checked against its primary source, with the link, so you can verify before relying on it.