Buckner v. Hasan

[Cite as Buckner v. Hasan, 2026-Ohio-2314.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA CHARLES BUCKNER JUNIOR, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Nos. 115132 and 115170 v. : CAROLYN HASAN, ET. AL, : Defendant-Appellant. : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 18, 2026 Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Probate Division Case No. 2024ADV291482 and 2024ADV293661 Appearances: Dibo Law, LLC, Nathalie A. Dibo, and Scott Schooler, for appellee. Carolyn Hasan El, pro se. DEENA R. CALABRESE, J.: In these consolidated appeals, defendant-appellant Carolyn Hasan (“Hasan”) appeals the trial court’s judgments authorizing the sale of certain real estate pursuant to R.C. 2127.04(B) over her objection, finding her guilty of conveying away and possessing money belonging to the estate of Charles W. Buckner Sr. (the “decedent”) pursuant to R.C. 2109.50 and 2109.52, and awarding attorney fees in connection with the finding of guilt in that proceeding. Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm. I. Facts and Procedural History A. Background — The Decedent’s Estate The decedent died intestate on September 15, 2022. On January 6, 2023, one of his children, Charles Buckner Jr. (“Buckner”), filed Cuyahoga Probate No. 2023EST276692 to open an estate and serve as administrator.1 The filing identified five individuals, including Hasan, as the decedent’s children. It also identified one grandchild as next of kin. Following a hearing on April 7, 2023, a probate court magistrate issued a decision on the application for authority to administer the estate. In an entry dated April 13, 2023, the magistrate noted Buckner Sr.’s date of death, that he did not leave a will, and that his next of kin included five children and one grandchild. The magistrate further noted that while Hasan appeared at the hearing and objected to Buckner’s application to serve as administrator, she refused to provide any sworn testimony. According to the magistrate, Hasan likewise failed to produce evidence of what assets she claimed to be currently administering or under what authority 1 This short background discussion is based on the docket in the estate action. “This court is permitted to take judicial notice of court filings that are readily accessible from the internet.” State ex rel. JTC Solutions, LLC v. Kelley, 2026-Ohio-1288, ¶ 1, fn. 1 (8th Dist.); Hrina v. KLS Martin, L.P., 2026-Ohio-1276, ¶ 4, fn. 1 (8th Dist.); State v. Wagner, 2023- Ohio-1215, ¶ 64 (8th Dist.); State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 2007-Ohio-4798. she was doing so. In addition, Hasan had filed no separate application for authority to administer the estate. The magistrate found that all parties other than Hasan had consented to Buckner’s appointment as administrator, that nothing indicated he was unsuited for the role, and that no other individual (including Hasan) had separately sought authority to administer the estate. The magistrate therefore recommended that Buckner’s application be granted subject to posting a bond. Hasan objected to the magistrate’s decision but failed to file either a transcript or an affidavit as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). On August 9, 2023, the probate court summarily overruled the objections and, upon independent review, adopted the magistrate’s decision. Buckner posted the required bond on August 15, 2023, and the probate court appointed him as the fiduciary of the estate the same day. Hasan followed up with a flurry of filings. For example, she attacked the probate court’s authority by filing separate “Affidavits of Fact” with both the assigned judge and the probate division’s administrative judge. These filings consisted primarily of universally discredited sovereign-citizen arguments.2 2 “Ohio courts have rejected arguments that the courts lack subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over natural or sovereign persons.” Capital One Bank (U.S.A.), N.A. v. McCladdie, 2022-Ohio-4082, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.). “Regardless of an individual’s claimed status of descent, be it as a ‘sovereign citizen,’ a ‘secured-party creditor,’ or a ‘flesh-and- blood human being,’ that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. These theories should be rejected summarily, however they are presented.” United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011).  Hasan also filed a motion to have Buckner removed as administrator. By entry dated January 25, 2024, the probate court entered a judgment finding that Hasan had “set[] forth no statutory or factual basis for removal of the Administrator” and that her petition to remove him “sets forth no recognizable cause of action.” After further procedural maneuvering, Hasan appealed. Her brief in that case, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 114074, repeated many of the same sovereign-citizen arguments, including that the trial court erred by ignoring her statement that she was “a woman of flesh and blood,” disregarding “the fact that [decedent] was a man of flesh and blood and not a person/corporate entity[,]” and providing her with “no verifiable proof of having personam, subject matter or territorial jurisdiction over Carolyn Hasan El as a woman of flesh and blood capacity and flesh and blood capacity only[.]” She further referred to the elected trial court judge and the trial court magistrate by their proper names followed by “dba Judge” and “dba Magistrate,” respectively. In an entry dated December 11, 2024, this court granted Buckner’s motion to dismiss the appeal. It found that Hasan’s “brief in support of the appeal contains 11 proposed assignments of error that simply constitute a list of unrelated legal concepts and legal theories unsupported with coherent explanation of how the legal concepts apply to the trial court’s judgment.” B. Action for Authority to Sell Real Estate On August 23, 2024, Buckner filed a fiduciary’s complaint for authority to sell real estate. Hasan responded on October 18, 2024, with an answer in black, blue, and red ink that again relied principally on sovereign citizen theories. While there was some confusion regarding whether Hasan was attempting to assert a counterclaim, that issue was laid to rest by two journal entries dated November 19, 2024, one dismissing any purported counterclaim in Hasan’s October 18, 2024 answer and another dismissing Hasan’s separate counterclaim filed November 15, 2024. Hasan has not separately assigned error to the dismissals of her counterclaims. A probate court magistrate held a hearing on December 17, 2024, on the complaint for authority to sell real estate. Buckner was present and represented by counsel. Hasan appeared pro se. The hearing was recorded. According to the magistrate’s decision filed February 25, 2025, all other next of kin filed waivers of summons as well as consents to the complaint for land sale. The magistrate issued findings of fact, indicating that the decedent’s probate assets included “two parcels of real estate, to wit, 13010 Soika Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44120 (129-29-060) and 1820 Knowles Street, East Cleveland, Ohio 44112 (672-22-050),” and that the fiduciary sought to sell both properties “to pay the debts of the estate.” In addition to reiterating that all other next of kin had consented to the sale of the referenced parcels, the magistrate noted that Hasan objected to the sale of the Soika Avenue property because, according to Hasan, the decedent had not wanted it sold and also because she believed she was “entitled to the real property for care services she provided to the decedent prior to his passing.” According to the magistrate, Hasan was “indifferent” to the disposition of the Knowles Street property except for her preference that it be kept “to build a family legacy.” The magistrate’s conclusions of law quoted R.C. 2127.04(B) and (B)(1)(a)-(c) in their entirety. That section permits an administrator to commence a probate court action “to sell any part or all of the decedent’s real property, even though the real property is not required to be sold to pay debts or legacies” where at least 50 percent of all persons interested in the real property have consented to the sale, no person with an aggregate interest in the real property of greater than 25 percent has objected to the sale, and the sale is in the best interest of the estate. The magistrate found all of these conditions satisfied and ordered that the properties could be sold without further appraisal. The magistrate’s decision expressly included the following notification with respect to filing objections: Pursuant to Civil Rule 53(D)(3)(b)(iv), a party shall not assign as error on appeal a Court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion of a magistrate, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ. R.53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless that party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b). Hasan filed timely objections to the magistrate’s decision on March 11, 2025, but failed to provide a transcript or submit an affidavit pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii) either with her objections or within 30 days after filing her objections. In addition to contesting some of the magistrate’s findings of fact, Hasan contended that the magistrate made a legal error, namely, that the magistrate incorrectly interpreted R.C. 2127.04. The magistrate had focused on R.C. 2127.04(B), which permits a fiduciary to commence an action for the sale of real property without the unanimous consent of interested parties. Hasan, however, quoted portions of R.C. 2127.04(A), a separate subsection contemplating an action for authority to sell real property “[w]ith the consent of all persons entitled to share in an estate upon distribution[.]” Hasan’s statutory-construction argument consisted of the observation that “A comes before B.” Hasan reasoned that because she did not consent to the sale of the property, the court lacked authority to permit the sale. Buckner filed his opposition on March 21, 2025, principally challenging Hasan’s interpretation of the statute. By order dated April 15, 2025 — more than 30 days after Hasan had filed her objections — the trial court overruled her objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision. Hasan filed a timely notice of appeal on May 14, 2025.3 On June 11, 2025, she filed an application to prepare transcript, which the trial court granted by order dated June 13, 2025. Several days later, however, Hasan filed both an affidavit of indigence and a motion to prepare the transcript at State’s expense, citing financial hardship. We note that at this point Hasan began filing identical pleadings in both this action (2024ADV291482) and a concealment action (2024ADV293661), 3 The same day, Hasan also filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment with the trial court. Buckner moved to strike the motion. The trial court granted Buckner’s motion to strike on May 30, 2025, concluding that Hasan’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion “must be stricken because an Appeal has been filed and is pending in the Eighth District Court of Appeals.” which we discuss below. In the consolidated appeals, Hasan later sought and was granted multiple extensions to prepare the record.4 The trial court denied Hasan’s motion to prepare the transcript at State’s expense on June 26, 2025, stating that “there is no statutory authority for providing a trial transcript at state expense for a civil action.” On August 14, 2025, Hasan filed a proposed App.R. 9(C) narrative of the hearing before the magistrate. The trial court rejected the narrative as well. In an order dated August 25, 2025, it reasoned that there was “no assertion that a recording was not made or that a recording or transcript is unavailable.”5 It then continued: The Court finds that Rule 9(C) is not applicable absent a finding that a recording or transcript is not available. The Court further finds that the proposed narrative attached to Defendant’s Notice raises an issue as to whether Defendant made her own recording of the proceedings in violation of this Court’s Local Rule 54. C. Concealment Action On November 19, 2024, while the complaint for authority to sell real estate was still unresolved, Buckner filed a complaint against Hasan pursuant to 4 We will address the chronology and content of Hasan’s various record-related motions filed with this court in connection with her fifth assignment of error. 5 The trial court issued nearly identical orders in this action (2024ADV291482) and the concealment action (2024ADV293661). Each order, however, appears on the incorrect docket. The order docketed in the concealment action, which did not involve proceedings before a magistrate, refers to “a hearing held before a Magistrate.” The order in this case, 2024ADV291482, featured no hearings by the trial court but nevertheless references Hasan’s proposed App.R. 9(C) narrative “of a hearing before the undersigned judge.” Both orders deny Hasan’s motions for identical reasons, however, and both are part of the record in this consolidated appeal. Accordingly, there is no impediment to consideration of Hasan’s associated assignment of error. The erroneous captioning and misfiling did not prejudice Hasan and was therefore harmless. R.C. 2109.50 and 2109.52 for concealment of assets. Buckner contended that after the decedent’s death Hasan had liquidated certain deposit and retirement accounts that became estate property upon the decedent’s death, first by withdrawing $20,000 from an account shortly after the decedent’s death and then by conveying away additional money several months later into a trust account that she controlled. After service of the complaint, Hasan filed a motion to dismiss on January 9, 2025. Buckner opposed the motion. Noting that Hasan claimed to have withdrawn the funds pursuant to a “private Express Trust [sic],” Buckner wrote: Even in the unlikely event that Defendant is able to establish and provide sufficient evidence to support this claim, the transfers were still unauthorized because Charles Buckner Sr. would have had to transfer these funds to the trust during his lifetime in order for the money to be considered trust property. Defendant’s self-proclaimed position as trustee does not grant her authority to convert estate property to trust property. The trial court denied Hasan’s motion to dismiss by entry dated February 5, 2025. 1. The Concealment Hearing The trial court held a hearing on the complaint for concealment on March 10, 2025. The hearing was ultimately transcribed, and the transcript was made part of the record on appeal. Because it is relevant to Hasan’s fifth assignment of error, we note an exchange between the trial court and Hasan immediately after the court went on the record. When the trial court asked Hasan if she was proceeding without counsel, she responded: “I have assistant [sic] of counsel, not a bar member.” (Tr. 3.) The trial court requested clarification. Hasan responded: “I’m presenting [sic] myself and have assistance of counsel.” (Tr. 3.) The trial court asked an unidentified male if he was an attorney. He responded in the negative. The trial court then informed Hasan that “[h]e can sit with you for moral support or whatever, but he cannot participate or represent you if he’s not a licensed attorney in the State of Ohio.” (Tr. 4.) Hasan sought to clarify that she planned to ask the individual to help her with paperwork. The trial court replied: “Well, we’ll see how that goes, because we have very strict rules in Ohio about the practice of law.” (Tr. 4.) It stated that if it appeared the individual was trying to counsel Hasan, the trial court would “stop it.” (Tr. 4.) The trial court nevertheless noted that it would “see how it proceeds.” (Tr. 4.) The parties made brief opening remarks. Buckner then called Hasan to testify. There was a stumbling block before Hasan answered even the first question, which was a request to state and spell her name for the record. While the transcript reflects that Hasan responded “[m]y — my —,” the trial court’s immediate admonition sheds light on what occurred. Specifically, Hasan had attempted to confer with a nonattorney at the outset of her direct examination: THE COURT: I’m not going to have you confer with a nonattorney. This isn’t going to happen. He can sit in the back, or he can leave the room if that’s what’s going to happen. He cannot advise you. Sir, you cannot advise her. You’re not an attorney. (Tr. 8.) Hasan provided her name. She further testified that her father had died on September 15, 2022. Buckner next asked whether Hasan was currently employed. Hasan refused to answer, claiming she did not think it was relevant. The trial court reminded Hasan that it was for the court to decide matters of relevance and overruled Hasan’s objection. Hasan responded that she “work[ed] for herself.” (Tr. 9.) The court stated: THE COURT: You know what? This [is] going to go a lot easier if you just answer the questions. We’re not — we don’t play games. This is a court proceeding. THE WITNESS: Okay. No, no. THE COURT: I understand how that law works, and I’m going to make sure that we follow the law. THE WITNESS: And — THE COURT: So the question is, are you employed? THE WITNESS: Okay. I plead the Fifth on that. (Tr. 9-10.) The trial court directed Buckner to move on with questioning. Hasan testified that she held power of attorney for the decedent. Buckner presented her with Exhibit A, and Hasan confirmed it was the power of attorney bearing both her signature and her late father’s. Buckner next identified Exhibit B as a UBS Resource Management account statement dated June 2023, account number xxxx517, in the name of the Buckner Family Trust. (Tr. 12.)6 At this point, however, proceedings stalled again 6 The transcript specifies Exhibit D, but this appears to be a minor transcription error. The relevant testimony clearly focused on Exhibit B, the June 2023 UBS statement. for another admonition by the trial court regarding Hasan’s apparent attempt to consult, during her testimony, with nonattorneys: THE COURT: Again, I’m going to ask both you gentlemen to let Ms. Hasan represent herself. There is a law in Ohio that prohibits you from acting as counsel. And I will have to report both of you if you continue to attempt to advise her. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We — THE COURT: She — I don’t want to hear anything from you. You are free to sit with her if she wants you to sit at the table. But you will not advise her, you will not assist her. You are not attorneys. (Tr. 12.) Hasan confirmed that she held herself out to be the trustee of the Buckner Family Trust. (Tr. 13.) Asked to explain under what authority she was trustee, Hasan responded, “[U]nder the authority of my father, charging me to take care of his affairs.” (Tr. 13-14.) Buckner presented Hasan with Exhibit C, identified as the “Buckner Family Trust, trust indenture and articles.” (Tr. 14.) The exhibit bears four signatures, specifically, a signature that purports to be her father’s as settlor, her own signature as trustee, and two witness signatures. Hasan was unable to provide the full names of the witnesses and responded “[t]hat’s not relevant” when asked how she knew them. (Tr. 15.) Once admonished again by the court, Hasan stated she knew the witnesses “[i]n a business capacity.” (Tr. 15.) Hasan confirmed that according to the page numbering on Exhibit C, the trust document consisted of a total of twelve pages, but the exhibit consisted of just four pages. The following exchange occurred:  Q: And we’ve requested a copy of the full trust. But this is all you’ve given us, correct? A: Absolutely. (Tr. 16.) Hasan admitted that her father’s signature on Exhibit C was actually her own handwriting: “[T]hat is my signature, signing for my father[.]” (Tr. 16.) She further admitted, however, that there is no indication that she was signing under her power of attorney authority. She chalked this up to a “mishap” or “honest mistake” because she “was so used to signing his name[.]” (Tr. 16.) Having admitted that the signature was actually hers, she further claimed to have created the purported trust under her power of attorney authority. (Tr. 17-18.) Buckner next questioned Hasan regarding Exhibit D, identified as a document dated May 25, 2023, opening a Buckner Family Trust account with UBS. Hasan admitted that the document bore her signature and that she hand wrote her father’s social security number on it. (Tr. 18-19.) Hasan nevertheless claimed the account was created back in August 2022, prior to her father’s death, and that the May 2023 document merely reflected “when UBS eventually did this.” (Tr. 19-20.) After a short recess, the hearing resumed. Hasan was referred again to Exhibit B, the Buckner Family Trust UBS account statement dated June 2023. Hasan confirmed that page nine of the statement reflects a “securities transferred in” total of $31,065.33. She further confirmed that according to the statement, the transfers came from two separate UBS accounts, xxxx711 and xxxx716, with the transfers themselves dated June 7 and June 8, 2023. (Tr. 21-22.) Asked if those accounts were in her father’s personal name, Hasan replied: “I’m taking a [sic] Fifth.” (Tr. 22.) Buckner then turned to the actual documents for the referenced accounts. Exhibit E was a September 2022 statement for account xxxx711. The statement reflects a value on August 31, 2022 of $42,935.12. Page 10 of the exhibit indicates a withdrawal on September 29, 2022 — after the death of Buckner Sr. — in the amount of $20,000. Asked if she made the withdrawal, Hasan responded: “I plead the Fifth.” (Tr. 23.) She also “plead[ed] the Fifth” in response to the question of whether the withdrawal made September 29, 2022, was after her father’s death. (Tr. 23-24.) Hasan was then confronted with Exhibit F, a UBS check made out to decedent in the amount of $20,000 dated September 29, 2022, after the decedent’s death. Asked if it was her signature on the endorsement, Hasan replied: “I take the Fifth. I refuse to answer that.” (Tr. 24.) This time, however, Hasan did admit that September 29, 2022, was after her father’s death on September 15, 2022. (Tr. 25.) Asked what she did with the $20,000, Hasan did not assert her Fifth Amendment rights. Instead she claimed “there was a disbursement of $3,333.33 . . . to all [children] of [decedent].” (Tr. 25.) Asked if there was evidence of this disbursement, Hasan argued that counsel should ask the next of kin “because they know they did[]” receive the money. (Tr. 25.) Buckner then moved on to Exhibit G, a funeral home receipt indicating a payment by check in the amount of $16,000 on October 2, 2022, shortly after the date of the UBS check. Hasan, however, denied using any portion of the $20,000 withdrawal to issue a check to the funeral home. (Tr. 27-28.)7 Buckner next questioned Hasan regarding Exhibit H, a June 2023 UBS statement, account xxxx711, in the decedent’s name. Hasan confirmed that at the bottom of page 9 the statement reflects securities transferred out in the amount of $18,329.77. (Tr. 28-29.) She further acknowledged that the transfers were made on June 7 and June 8, 2023, to the Buckner Family Trust account, UBS account number xxxx517. (Tr. 29.) This, along with another transfer to the trust account on June 7, 2023, in the amount of $1,009.40, left account xxxx711 with a June 30, 2023 ending balance of zero. Asked for an explanation for the transfers made on June 7 and June 8, 2023, approximately nine months after her father’s death, Hasan stated that “[i]t appears that UBS decided to transfer those funds at this time.” (Tr. 30.) She claimed she had directed UBS to make the transfers “prior to” the referenced dates, in fact “way before” those dates. (Tr. 30.) Buckner asked Hasan why UBS would wait nine months to make the transfers. She responded: “That was precisely my question, too. And that’s why eventually [sic] got transferred. It eventually got transferred because I had to stay on them.” (Tr. 30.) 7 At this point the trial court admonished Hasan for communicating with one or more other individuals at the table prior to answering a question during her examination. The trial court again warned that if there was “any further communication” it would require the gentlemen sitting at the table “to move to the seats in the back.” (Tr. 26-27.)  At this point Buckner pointed out that Hasan had signed Exhibit D, the paperwork opening the UBS trust account on May 25, 2023. (Tr. 31.) Hasan insisted that everything was in place earlier and that documentation showing that she requested the transfers prior to her father’s death “would be with UBS.” (Tr. 31.) She had nothing in writing, she testified, but she believed that UBS recorded all telephone calls, which “would be [her] only proof[,]” and she “would hope that nothing got deleted[.]” (Tr. 31.) Faced with these dates demonstrating the date the UBS account in the name of the trust was opened and the date of the transfers, Hasan testified: Again, I will say, my dad — my dad, Charles William Buckner, Sr., entrusted me to do his will, what he wanted me — what he needed me to do. There was nothing about concealing or trying to hide anything. Never try to hide anything. (Tr. 31.) She claimed that despite what “may be the appearance[,]” that “does not take away the fact that [she] had started” or “requested this prior to [her] father’s demise, because [she] did.” (Tr. 32.) Buckner moved to Exhibit I, a September 2022 UBS IRA rollover account in Buckner Sr.’s name bearing account number xxxx716, as well as Exhibit J, the June 2023 statement for the same UBS IRA account. The statement indicates a total of securities transferred out of $12,735.56. Asked to confirm that Exhibit J reflected the transfer of this amount, Hasan responded: “I would take the Fifth on that.” (Tr. 33.) The exchange continued in similar fashion with respect to the dates of the transfers:  Q. Okay. Do you see above that the June 8th transfers, that total of that 12,000 number? A. Take the Fifth on that as well. Q. So just like the last account, you transferred this money to the trust account nine months after your father passed away, correct? A. Take the Fifth. (Tr. 33-34.)8 Asked whether she knew that the UBS IRA rollover account had named beneficiaries at the time of her father’s death, Hasan indicated she did not. Exhibit K, however, was a McDonald Investments IRA director adoption agreement specifying several beneficiaries, including Hasan. Exhibit L was an affidavit from a UBS financial advisor that linked the accounts, indicating that the former McDonald Investments account became Buckner Sr.’s UBS IRA rollover account, now bearing UBS account number xxxx716. The affidavit further indicated that the separate UBS account bearing account number xxxx711 did not have any beneficiaries. With respect to the UBS IRA rollover account, which had beneficiaries specified in the event of Buckner Sr.’s death, the following exchange occurred: Q. Okay. So you didn’t alert UBS of your father’s passing, did you? A. I refuse to answer that. Take my [sic] Fifth. Fifth. (Tr. 37.) 8 The trial court indicated that because a concealment action is a quasi-criminal proceeding, it would allow Hasan to assert the Fifth Amendment, but also stated that “[t]he documents speak for themselves[.]” (Tr. 34.)  Pressed as to whether the June 2023 transfers from the UBS IRA rollover went to the Buckner Family Trust account rather than being divided as a percentage split between Hasan and the other listed beneficiaries, Hasan stated that she “was not aware of this[.]” (Tr. 38.) Buckner’s final exhibit was Exhibit M, a February 2025 UBS statement for the Buckner Family Trust account, account number xxxx517. Hasan confirmed that the address on the statement was her home and that the specified value of the account as of February 28, 2025, was $45,407.28. (Tr. 38-39.) Asked whether she had added anything to the account apart from the total of $31,065.33 transferred from the UBS deposit account (xxxx711) and the UBS IRA rollover account (xxxx716), Hasan denied doing so and maintained that the increased value was because of investment returns. (Tr. 40.) Hasan asserted her Fifth Amendment rights when asked if there were other accounts or assets she accessed after her father’s death. (Tr. 41.) Buckner then rested without calling additional witnesses. The trial court asked Hasan if she planned to submit evidence or call witnesses in her defense. Hasan first proclaimed her sovereign status, stating she was “indigenous and Aboriginal” and “Aboriginal to this land mass[.]” (Tr. 42.) She further claimed that the trial court had denied her constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel by not permitting her to consult with the two nonattorneys who had accompanied her to the hearing. (Tr. 42.) The trial court informed Hasan that it was “not asking for a civics lesson” and again asked if she wished to present witnesses or evidence. (Tr. 42.) Hasan called Buckner to cross-examine him. Buckner confirmed he was Hasan’s brother, and Hasan questioned him regarding proceeds from the $20,000 check discussed during her own testimony, asking him if he ever received a check in the amount of $3,333.33. Buckner acknowledged he received such a check. (Tr. 44.) Hasan further asked whether he recalled her asking that he sign a paper acknowledging receipt. Buckner responded: “I signed the paper.” (Tr. 45.) He denied knowing what any other siblings received. He acknowledged that he remembered Hasan “passing out some envelopes” but stated he did not “know what was in them.” (Tr. 45.) Hasan further asked Buckner whether he recalled receiving any letters indicating he was “a beneficiary to the Buckner Family Trust[.]” (Tr. 45.) Buckner responded that he “actually received one letter that [he] can remember.” (Tr. 45.) The trial court marked a set of letters dated September 21, 2023, as Hasan’s exhibit No. 1. The letters indicated that Hasan was the trustee of the Buckner Family Trust and that the five recipients were beneficiaries. The trial court marked a second set of letters as Hasan’s exhibit No. 2. Those letters, addressed to the same five individuals, were dated October 1, 2023. They indicated that the “Buckner Family Trust has UBS assets only in the trust,” that “[t]his trust was established on August 10, 2022,” that it was “a private trust,” and that the current assets in the trust account totaled $34,444.42.  Rather than ask further questions regarding the letters, Hasan went down a path of questionable relevancy, asking Buckner, for example, if he made intemperate remarks to her and her children after the decedent’s death. The trial court reminded Hasan that “the issue before the Court is — are the UBS accounts[.]” (Tr. 50.) Hasan secured an admission that Buckner cashed a check for $3,333.33. (Tr. 52.) After that she engaged in what the trial court observed was a combination of her own testimony and questioning regarding the nature of the trust and whether she was required to disclose more than the four pages she had provided. (Tr. 53-54.) Asked directly whether he was told the trust exists, Buckner responded: “I’m not exactly sure.” (Tr. 55.) He did acknowledge, however that he thought he received “one letter from [Hasan] stating that — that I was a beneficiary; that she was the trustee; that she can’t give me no more information when I ask for a copy. That’s the only thing.” (Tr. 57.) Hasan called Kenneth Hasan (“Kenneth”) as her next witness. He testified that he was one of the trustees of the Buckner Family Trust and that Hasan had made him aware of the letters she sent to beneficiaries regarding the trust. (Tr. 63.) Kenneth testified that prior to the decedent’s death he and Hasan were “on the phone with UBS from the year 2022” and that he “was assisting [Hasan] in regard to establishing the trust.” (Tr. 65.) He claimed that he and Hasan were unaware until very recently that there were beneficiaries named with respect to the UBS IRA rollover account. (Tr. 65.)  Kenneth further testified that because the decedent (his grandfather) had no will, an unspecified attorney advised him to set up a private trust, and that he “advised [Hasan] it was necessary and at [sic] best to put everything in trust.” (Tr. 65-66.) Kenneth testified that all of this occurred prior to the decedent’s death. (Tr. 65-66.) Kenneth, however, did not testify regarding dates with any precision, and no exhibits were placed before him. He nevertheless testified that “UBS processed everything after” the decedent’s death. (Tr. 66.) Kenneth also testified that prior to his death, the decedent “was incapacitated.” (Tr. 66.) He clarified, however, that this information came from Hasan, who “told [him] that” the decedent’s physician “said . . . that he was incapacitated.” (Tr. 66.) He attributed the “whole hold up” with UBS to his grandfather’s incapacity. (Tr. 66-67.) On cross-examination, Kenneth was reminded of the timeline of events and asked specifically whether he or anyone had alerted UBS to his grandfather’s death. (Tr. 68-69.) He claimed he “believe[d]” that he “issued them a death certificate” but could not recall “the exact time and date.” (Tr. 69.) Kenneth was asked to explain why, if he gave UBS a death certificate, “they still allowed the transfer of an account with beneficiaries to a trust account[.]” (Tr. 69.) Kenneth did not seem to understand the question. After briefly suggesting that this was a matter for UBS’s legal department, he claimed that he and his mother (Hasan) did not receive the exhibit listing beneficiaries until February and were previously unaware of the beneficiary designations. (Tr. 69.)  The trial court, however, essentially repeated the preceding question: “The question was, did you ever inform UBS about Mr. Buckner’s death? That was the question, okay?” (Tr. 70.) Kenneth responded that they “did alert UBS at the time of the death” but that he did not “know the time and date exactly.” (Tr. 70.) Testimony concluded, and the trial court heard closing arguments. Buckner’s counsel pointed to the withdrawal of $20,000 and the later transfers to the trust account, arguing that Hasan “has not presented any evidence that these transfers were initiated prior to [the decedent’s] death[,]” that she “has not presented any evidence as to where this $3,333 came from[,]” and that “when she distributed that money is totally unclear.” (Tr. 70-71.) With respect to the transfers to the trust account specifically, Buckner argued it was clear from the exhibits that the money was in the decedent’s name when he died and was then “wrongfully concealed and transferred nine months later in June of 2023 into a trust account that was set up by [Hasan] in May of 2023.” (Tr. 71.) Buckner requested that the assets be returned to the estate, plus a ten percent penalty pursuant to R.C. 2109.52 and attorney fees. Hasan argued that the decedent had “entrusted [her] to do what [she had] done” and that her “intent has never been to withhold or do anything.” (Tr. 71.) She referenced the letter to her siblings and Buckner’s admission that he had received a check for $3,333.33. She further argued that the UBS IRA rollover account, which specified beneficiaries, was not subject to probate, but that in any event she was never aware of the beneficiary designations. She asserted again that “it was never [her] intent to hide anything” and that her father “knew that I would do the right thing.” (Tr. 72.) She stated that there was a “verbal affidavit to take care of his property, everything, his assets.” (Tr. 72.) At bottom, she argued, her “intent was to honor what [her] father wanted, not to deceive anybody or anything.” (Tr. 74.) The trial court took the matter under advisement. 2. The Trial Court’s Concealment Decision The trial court issued its decision in the concealment action on March 11, 2025. It found that the decedent had died on September 15, 2022, and that Buckner was the duly appointed administrator of his estate. Referencing Buckner’s Exhibit A, the power of attorney document, the trial court noted that it granted power to Hasan only if the decedent became disabled or incompetent. It further noted that under subsection H, the holder had the power to “establish a revocable trust solely for the benefit of the principal that terminates at the death of the principal.” The trial court found that the decedent held assets in his own name only in two separate UBS accounts, xxxx711 and xxxx716. With respect to the September 29, 2022 check drawn on account xxxx711 in the amount of $20,000, the trial court found that the check was made payable to the decedent but was endorsed by Hasan. The trial court concluded that the check was dated and endorsed, and the money withdrawn from account xxxx711, two weeks after the decedent’s death. It further found that as reflected in Exhibit E, the value of that account on the date of the decedent’s death was $42,935.12. The trial court further found that Hasan opened the Buckner Family Trust account xxxx517 with UBS on March 25, 2023, eight months after the decedent’s death. Then, on June 7 and 8, 2023, all the remaining money held in the decedent’s two UBS accounts (xxxx711 and xxxx716) was transferred into the Buckner Family Trust account. The trial court explicitly relied on Buckner’s Exhibits B, H, and I. It further held that the address listed on the Buckner Family