Wilson v. Lawrence (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 1410

Joseph Gorman died on January 20, 2013; his will named William Lawrence executor and the Cuyahoga County Probate Court opened the estate on July 1, 2013.
James Wilson claimed Gorman owed him approximately $187,000 under a purchase contract; Wilson’s lawyer mailed a written demand on July 11, 2013 addressed to Gorman’s personal secretary (Patricia Clark) and the trustee of his trust (Randall Myeroff), not directly to executor Lawrence or estate counsel Goldsmith.
Clark and Myeroff forwarded Wilson’s letter to estate counsel and to Lawrence shortly after receiving it; Goldsmith informed Wilson that the mailing to the secretary and trustee was insufficient to effect presentment under R.C. 2117.06.
Wilson sued Lawrence (as executor) in November 2013 for breach of contract; the trial court granted summary judgment for the estate, finding the letter had not been presented to the executor as required by R.C. 2117.06.
The Eighth District reversed, adopting a relaxed rule treating presentment to others connected with the estate as sufficient; this Court accepted jurisdiction to resolve a conflict with the Fourth District.
The Supreme Court held that the statute unambiguously requires presentment "to the executor or administrator in a writing," and delivery to a nonappointed third party who forwards the claim does not satisfy R.C. 2117.06(A)(1)(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wilson)	Defendant's Argument (Lawrence)	Held
Whether presentment requirement of R.C. 2117.06(A)(1)(a) is satisfied when a written claim is delivered to persons connected to the decedent (secretary/trustee) who then forward it to the executor	Wilson: mailing to secretary and trustee was reasonably calculated to and did result in delivery to the executor within the six‑month period, so presentment requirement was met	Lawrence: statute mandates presentment "to the executor or administrator in a writing"; delivery to persons who are not appointed fiduciaries does not satisfy the statutory requirement	Held for Lawrence: claimant must present written claim directly to executor/administrator; delivery to a nonappointed third party who later forwards it does not constitute presentment under R.C. 2117.06(A)(1)(a)

Fortelka v. Meifert, 176 Ohio St. 476 (1964) (service of summons and complaint on administrator can satisfy R.C. 2117.06 when it reasonably accomplishes presentment)
Beach v. Mizner, 131 Ohio St. 481 (1936) (strict enforcement of statutory presentment requirement in estate claims)
Beacon Mut. Indemn. Co. v. Stalder, 95 Ohio App. 441 (9th Dist.) (1954) (presentation to an agent of the administrator does not satisfy presentment; functions of the office cannot be delegated)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons, 140 Ohio St.3d 7 (2014) (use of “shall” in statute denotes a mandatory obligation)
Wrinkle v. Trabert, 174 Ohio St. 233 (1963) (creditor’s lack of diligence in identifying administrator is not excused under presentment rule)