Wilson v. Lawrence (Slip Opinion), 150 Ohio St. 3d 368

Joseph T. Gorman died Jan. 20, 2013; his estate was opened in Cuyahoga County Probate Court on July 1, 2013, and William Lawrence was appointed executor; counsel for the estate was James A. Goldsmith.
James A. Wilson (claimant) had a contract claim against Gorman of roughly $187,000–$200,000 arising before death.
On July 11, 2013 Wilson’s counsel mailed a written demand addressed to Gorman’s secretary (Patricia Clark) and trustee (Randall Myeroff), not directly to the appointed executor or estate counsel.
Clark and Myeroff forwarded the letter to Goldsmith and Lawrence; Goldsmith notified Wilson’s counsel that presentation to the secretary and trustee was insufficient and declined to treat it as a presentment to the executor.
Wilson sued the executor in common pleas court; the trial court granted summary judgment for the estate, the Eighth District reversed holding presentment could be satisfied by delivery to others connected to the estate, and this court accepted discretionary review.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Eighth District and remanded to enter judgment for the executor, holding the statutory presentment requirement was not met.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a creditor “presents” a written claim under R.C. 2117.06(A)(1)(a) by delivering it to a person not appointed as executor/administrator (e.g., secretary or trustee)	Wilson: sending the letter addressed to "heirs, administrators or executors" and reasonably calculated delivery (via secretary/trustee) satisfied presentment; substantial compliance should be allowed	Lawrence: statute requires written presentment "to the executor or administrator" — delivery to an unappointed third party is not compliance	Held: Must present in writing to the appointed executor/administrator; delivery to an unappointed person who later forwards it does not satisfy R.C. 2117.06(A)(1)(a).

Fortelka v. Meifert, 176 Ohio St. 476 (1964) (service of suit on the administrator may satisfy presentment where the administrator is identified and served)
Beach v. Mizner, 131 Ohio St. 481 (1936) (statutory presentment requirement must be applied as written)
Beacon Mut. Indem. Co. v. Stalder, 95 Ohio App. 441 (1951) (presentation to an agent of the administrator does not meet the statutory requirement; duties of the probate officer are nondelegable)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons, 140 Ohio St.3d 7 (2014) (use of the word "shall" denotes a mandatory statutory obligation)