An executor or administrator, or a distributee who receives the presentation of a claim as provided in division (A)(2) of section 2117.06 of the Revised Code, shall reject a creditor's claim against the estate by giving the claimant written notice of the disallowance of the claim. The notice shall be given to the claimant pursuant to Civil Rule 73. Notice by mail shall be effective on delivery of the mail at the address given. A claim may be rejected in whole or in part. A claim that has been allowed may be rejected at any time after allowance of the claim.
A claim is rejected if the executor or administrator, or a distributee who receives the presentation of a claim as provided in division (A)(2) of section 2117.06 of the Revised Code, on demand in writing by the claimant for an allowance of the claim within five days, which demand may be made at presentation or at any time after presentation, fails to give to the claimant, within that five-day period, a written statement of the allowance of the claim. The rejection shall become effective at the expiration of that period.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: In Re Est. of Geanangel, 761 N.E.2d 1235 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Est. of Geanangel, 761 N.E.2d 1235 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3דIf the executor neither accepts nor rejects the claim, the creditor can compel action by the executor by filing a demand pursuant to R.C. 2117.11. R.C. 2117.11 provides: {¶ 35} “A claim is rejected if the executor or administrator, on demand in writing by the claimant for an…”
Budz v. Somerfield, 2023 Ohio 155 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2דSomerfield also asserted that, pursuant to R.C. 2117.11, his silence in not allowing the claim constituted a rejection.”
Hawkes Hosp. v. Colley, 442 N.E.2d 761 (Ohio 1982). · cites it 2דThe basic issue presented is whether the letter dated June 11, 1979, sent by appellee’s attorney to appellant, constituted a rejection of appellant’s claim against the estate of appellee’s decedent within the ambit of R.C. 2117.11 and applicable case law. This court, after a…”
In re Est. of Liggons, 933 N.E.2d 1118 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3ד{¶ 35} The issue then becomes, Does the December 2, 2005 response to that motion constitute a rejection that would, under the foregoing ease law, deprive the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction to consider the surviving spouse’s claim for reimbursement of funeral…”
In re Est. of Ohman, 2023 Ohio 4008 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2ד00 is rejected in toto, under the provisions of R.C. 2117.11.” {¶ 10} On January 29, 2020, appellee filed an amended complaint3 against defendants Robert Ridoutt, individually, as Executor of the Estate of Gail Ina Ridoutt, and as Trustee of the Ridoutt Living Trust dated…”
In re Est. of Baughman, 691 N.E.2d 257 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 11דA claim against an estate is not rejected by silence pursuant to R.C. 2117.11 unless the creditor plainly invokes the statute’s five-day response period.”
Lewis v. Knight, 144 N.E.2d 551 (Ohio Ct. App. 1955). · cites it 3דOn authority of §2117.11 R. C., paragraph 2, the defendant administratrix rejected plaintiff’s claim on July 29, 1954, within four months of the date of her appointment as administratrix.”
In re Piesciuk, 2012 Ohio 2481 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6דSon objected to the magistrate’s decision on a single basis: that under R.C. 2117.11 an executor must notify a creditor of his claim’s disallowance in writing and in accordance with Civ.”
In re Est. of Baughman, 1998 Ohio 473 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 14דA claim against an estate is not rejected by silence pursuant to R.C. 2117.11 unless the creditor plainly invokes the statute’s five-day response period.”
Harris v. Harris, 2014 Ohio 2494 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2דThe estate rejected Appellant's claim pursuant to R.C. §2117.11. Therefore, Appellant's sole remedy was to commence an action on the claim pursuant to R.”
Bankers Guar. Title & Trust Co. v. Moyer, 2021 Ohio 4058 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “) The Estate of Edward Emil William Moyer, in accordance with ORC 2117.11, barred in full, on June 28, 2019, the claim of the Bankers Trust and Guarantee Company [sic], consisting of a securitized promissory note executed by Edward Moyer on June 21, 2013, a June 20, 2019 unpaid…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.