In re Stevens, 2012 Ohio 4754

Maxine Stevens died in 2010; her will admitted to probate, naming Dale Circle as executor and granting him an option to purchase farmland at $3,000 per acre under Item Two.
Stevens, Maxine’s granddaughter, was to receive all tangible personal property and the remainder was placed in a trust; Item Two permitted Circle to purchase real estate used for agricultural purposes and to be paid by cash or a note with a mortgage securing the land.
Circle exercised the option and sought court approval to proceed with the sale; Stevens opposed, arguing issues including lapse of Circle’s interest, compliance with the statute of frauds, and failure to obtain court approval under RC 2109.44.
The trial court initially allowed Circle to proceed, then vacated and later reconsidered, concluding the sale could be completed in a reasonable time and Circle acted within Item Two.
Stevens argued that Circle’s actions violated the in terrorem clause by challenging the will; the trial court found her challenges triggered the clause and denied distribution.
On appeal, the Second District reversed, concluding Stevens’ filings did not constitute a challenge to the validity of Item Two, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Stevens’ filings trigger the in terrorem clause?	Stevens sought clarification, not a will challenge.	Circle contends Stevens’ actions challenged Item Two.	Stevens' actions did not challenge validity; in terrorem not invoked.
Did Item Two require 45 days or only a reasonable time to complete.	Circle failed to comply within 45 days and/or selected an improper timeframe.	No strict 45-day deadline; completion within a reasonable time acceptable.	sale completed within a reasonable time; 45-day deadline not required.
Did Circle’s exercise of the option comply with the statute of frauds and require court approval under RC 2109.44?	Noncompliance with statute of frauds and lack of court approval invalidated transaction.	Actions complied with applicable requirements and court approval was not improperly withheld.	Not dispositive to reverse; underlying in terrorem ruling controls outcome.

Moskowitz v. Federman, 72 Ohio App.3d 149 (9th Dist. 1943) (in terrorem provisions apply to no contest clauses in wills)
Kirkbride v. Hickok, 155 Ohio St. 293, 98 N.E.2d 815 (1951) (beneficiaries may seek clarification without invalidating the will)