In re Estate of Baughman
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.
The probate court erred in dismissing Provident’s petition. A 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.
A motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction should be denied if “any cause of action cognizable by the forum has been raised in the complaint.” State ex rel. Bush v. Spurlock (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 537 N.E.2d 641, 644. Provident’s petition for payment of its claim was cognizable by the probate court unless rejected by Cash, as executor, in accordance with R.C.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State ex rel. Bush v. SpurlockOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Miller v. EwingOhio Supreme Court · 1903
- Hawkes Hospital v. ColleyOhio Supreme Court · 1982
3Cited by3 opinions
- Farm Supply Ctr. v. Smith, 2008-Ca-13 (10-15-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- In re Estate of BaughmanOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Talbott v. Fisk, Unpublished Decision (12-17-2002)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2002