When a claim against an estate has been rejected in whole or in part but not referred to referees, or when a claim has been allowed in whole or in part and thereafter rejected, the claimant must commence an action on the claim, or that part of the claim that was rejected, within two months after the rejection if the debt or that part of the debt that was rejected is then due, or within two months after that debt or part of the debt that was rejected becomes due, or be forever barred from maintaining an action on the claim or part of the claim that was rejected. If the executor or administrator dies, resigns, or is removed within that two-month period and before action is commenced on the claim or part of the claim that was rejected, the action may be commenced within two months after the appointment of a successor.
For the purposes of this section, the action of a claimant is commenced when the complaint and praecipe for service of summons on the executor or administrator, or on the distributee who received the presentation of the claim as provided in division (A)(2) of section 2117.06 of the Revised Code, have been filed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: Krohn v. Ostafi, 2020 Ohio 1536 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Krohn v. Ostafi, 2020 Ohio 1536 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 10ד9(B), 10(D)(1), 12(B)(1), and 12(B)(6), R.C. 2117.12, res judicata, “and the relevant Statutes of Limitations.”
Vitantonio, Inc. v. Baxter, 116 Ohio St. 3d 195 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 15ד19 applies to actions filed against a decedent’s estate under R.C. 2117.12. We hold that it does. *196 Facts and Procedural History {¶ 2} Because this cause was dismissed by the trial court pursuant to Civ.”
Budz v. Somerfield, 2023 Ohio 155 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 5דIn addition, Somerfield argued that the Rejection of Claim filed on March 13, 2020, addressed the entirety of Gail and Renee’s claims, and they had failed to file a timely suit under R.C. 2117.12. Next, Somerfield asserted that the claim arose out of the same transaction or…”
Carlin v. Mambuca, 645 N.E.2d 737 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 7דBayer was untimely and therefore barred by R.C. 2117.12. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand for.”
Greenberg v. Heyman-Silbiger, 2017 Ohio 515 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3ד{¶ 6} On September 23, 2015, two days after the complaint was filed, the two- month statute of limitations on rejected claims against the Heyman estate expired pursuant to R.C. 2117.12. {¶ 7} An estate was opened for Schaffer in the Franklin County Probate Court on October 1,…”
State ex rel. Gray v. Kimbler, 2022 Ohio 3937 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 2דSee generally R.C. 2117.12 (action on a claim rejected by the estate).”
In re Est. of Liggons, 933 N.E.2d 1118 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5דWhen a claim is rejected by the fiduciary of an estate, the claimant’s remedy lies in R.C. 2117.12, which provides, “When a claim against an estate has been rejected in whole or in part * * * the claimant must commence an action on the claim * * * within two months after the…”
In Re Est. of Geanangel, 761 N.E.2d 1235 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “” {¶ 36} In addition, R.C. 2117.12 provides: {¶ 37} “When a claim against an estate has been rejected in whole or in part but not referred to referees, or when a claim has been allowed in whole or in part and thereafter rejected, the claimant must commence an action on the…”
Caldwell v. Brown, 672 N.E.2d 1037 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4דCaldwell contends that the trial court erred in concluding that his cause of action was barred because he failed to bring it within the time prescribed by R.C. 2117.12. We agree. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this cause is remanded for further…”
Beckler v. Bacon, 868 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3דThe administrator filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that Beckler’s complaint had not been timely filed pursuant to R.C. 2117.12. The administrator’s motion also essentially alleged that Beckler had not set forth any sustainable claim against the estate.”
Bankers Guar. Title & Trust Co. v. Moyer, 2021 Ohio 4058 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 5ד) That under Ohio law (ORC 2117.12) the claimant had two months to take action on the barred claim, otherwise the claim would be forever barred.”
Hawkes Hosp. v. Colley, 442 N.E.2d 761 (Ohio 1982). · cites it 2דThis court, after a careful review of the record, finds that this correspondence failed to meet the standards necessary to constitute an effective rejection, and as such, it did not commence the running of the two-month statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2117.12. R.C.…”
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.