By Dan Horn
Enquirer staff writer

After seven years, two lawsuits and stops in three Ohio courts, the battle for control of the Charles H. Dater Foundation is back where it started.

A ruling last month from the Ohio Supreme Court returned the case to its original home in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, setting the stage for a trial involving one of the region's largest charitable foundations.

DATER GRANTS

The Charles H. Dater Foundation gives about $2 million a year to Greater Cincinnati charities. More than 250 organizations have received grants and the average grant is $20,000. Here are the top recipients so far this year: • Cincinnati Art Museum - $250,000 • Taft Museum of Art - $100,000 • Children's Theater - $50,000 • Cincinnati Scholarship Foundation - $50,000 • Learning Links - $50,000 • Cincinnati Opera - $40,000 • Emanuel Community Center - $40,000 • Summertime Kids - $40,000 • Ensemble Theater - $40,000 Source: Dater Foundation

But the woman who started the fight in 1997 - Dater's widow, Ann - says the case has dragged on so long that it may be too late for justice to be done.

She accuses her opponents, the foundation's five trustees, of stalling for time and says judges, lawyers and Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro have needlessly allowed the case to drag on.

The 87-year-old Dater, who lives in Arizona under 24-hour nursing care, says she now believes she will die before the case is resolved.

"Every day that passes," her lawyer wrote in a memorandum last week, "is a day justice is denied."

The foundation's trustees say they are just as eager to put the fight behind them. They dispute Dater's claims that they are enriching themselves at the expense of the foundation and deny using stall tactics.

"That's just insulting," said Mark VanderLaan, the trustees' attorney.

No matter what happens next, the years of litigation have left both sides frustrated and concerned about the future of the foundation.

Still, it continues to hand out about $2 million a year to Greater Cincinnati charities.

Neither side disputes that the foundation has done good work, but each believes they know best how to run it.

The stakes are high because whoever controls the $41.5 million foundation also controls how it spends its money.

In a scathing memorandum to Judge Dennis Helmick last week, Dater's lawyer, Quintin Lindsmith, protested the judge's suggestion that a trial in the case is at least a year away.

"This was a shocking revelation," Lindsmith wrote. "Mrs. Dater views the court's declining to set a trial date as continued, unexplained hostility toward her from the court."

But given the case's history and complexity - two trial courts, two detours to an appeals court and one trip to the Ohio Supreme Court - the trustees say a year is a reasonable amount of time to prepare for trial.

"There's nothing unusual about the timing," VanderLaan said.

The dispute began four years after Charles Dater's death in 1993, when Ann Dater challenged the way her late husband's $100 million fortune had been divided between the foundation and a series of family trusts that went to her and her children.

Her lawsuit claimed the trustees took advantage of her late husband's failing mental health and convinced him to sign away his millions.

The trustees received lifetime appointments to the foundation, salaries of about $70,000 a year and legal and consulting fees in excess of $4 million between 1990 and 1997.

Two of the trustees - Paul Krone and his son, Bruce - were Dater's lawyers. The others - Stanley Frank Jr., David Olberding and John Silvati - were his brokers. Paul Krone has since died and was replaced as a trustee by his wife, Dorothy.

The trustees say the foundation has flourished under their stewardship and have complained that Ann Dater simply wants more money. Dater recently challenged that contention when she offered to drop her lawsuit if the trustees resigned, allowing an independent board to appoint new trustees.

So far, that offer has been refused.

"The foundation and its directors have done nothing improper," said foundation spokesman Roger Ruhl.

Although the case is now back in Common Pleas Court, Judge Helmick has urged the two sides to settle and expressed hope that negotiations between the trustees and the Attorney General's office might lead to a resolution.

Petro sued the trustees two years ago, claiming they have wasted money and paid themselves excessive fees and salaries. The suit was withdrawn this year but could be filed again if negotiations fail.

"We're hopeful for an out-of-court resolution," said Petro's spokesman, Bob Beasley.

But Ann Dater doesn't buy it. After seven years, she has become convinced that neither her lawsuit nor Petro's suit will be resolved in her lifetime.

The trustees contend Dater is to blame for some of the delays, noting that her failure to appear for a pretrial deposition led to two years of legal wrangling.

"The foundation wants to see this matter resolved, too," Ruhl said.

Lindsmith has said Dater's deposition did not take place because she was unable to travel.

At this point, he said, all his client wants is a trial.

"Mrs. Dater is appalled and beyond frustration as to how the system of justice works in Ohio," Lindsmith said.

E-mail dhorn@enquirer.com