Plaintiff Real Estate Company Sues Estate Heirs Over Contract Dispute

A real estate dispute involving a contract for the purchase of property has reached a critical juncture, as an appellate court has affirmed a summary judgment against the plaintiff seeking specific performance. On February 10, 2025, Oasis Home Buyers LLC filed a complaint in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas against the Estate of Robert J. Thomas and his heirs, Nicolaus and Noah Welz. The complaint sought to enforce a real estate purchase agreement after Thomas’s untimely death.

The case revolves around Oasis Home Buyers LLC’s claim that it entered into a contract on October 10, 2024, to purchase property owned by Robert J. Thomas at 2832 Comanche Drive in Kettering, Ohio. However, before the transaction could be completed, Thomas passed away intestate and unmarried, leaving behind two sons, Nicolaus and Noah Welz. Oasis contended that it had no adequate remedy at law and sought specific performance to compel the sale of the property as per the original agreement.

In response to Oasis’s complaint, Nicolaus and Noah Welz filed a joint motion for summary judgment on May 6, 2025. They argued that under Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) 2117.06, Oasis was required to present its claim within six months of Thomas’s death. Furthermore, they asserted that since no estate had been opened for Thomas, Oasis should have initiated proceedings to open an estate to preserve its claim. Despite these arguments from the defendants, Oasis maintained that its action for specific performance was not contingent upon presenting a claim against Thomas’s estate.

Ultimately, the trial court sided with Nicolaus and Noah Welz by granting their motion for summary judgment. The court determined that Oasis’s failure to file a claim against Thomas’s estate within the statutory period effectively barred its breach of contract cause of action. This decision prompted Oasis to appeal.

On appeal, Oasis argued that it was not a “creditor” under R.C. 2117.06(C) and thus not subject to the statute’s requirements because its action was directed at enforcing an independent contractual obligation rather than claiming against an estate asset directly tied to debts or liabilities of the deceased.

However, relying on precedents such as Raber v. Seiberling and Pierce v. Johnson which define “creditor” broadly as anyone with rights in action against a decedent—encompassing those seeking specific performance—the appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling.

The appellate judges involved in this decision were Michael L. Tucker along with Lewis P.J., and Huffman J., who concurred with Judge Tucker’s opinion affirming the lower court’s judgment.