In Vitantonio v. Baxter, Lake App. No. 2005-L-004, 2006 Ohio 1685, the issue before the Eleventh Appellate District was whether the supreme court's holding in Allen should be extended to apply to claims against an estate. In Vitantonio, the plaintiffs presented their claims against the estate within one year of the decedent's death. After the executor rejected their claims, the plaintiffs timely filed their complaint under R.C. 2117.12, within two months of the date of rejection. The plaintiffs later voluntarily dismissed their complaint, but refiled it within a year under R.C. 2305.19. The trial court granted the executor's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss on the ground that R.C. 2305.19 did not apply to actions involving claims against an estate. The Eleventh Appellate District reversed the trial court's decision. After thoroughly reviewing the supreme court's decision in Allen, the court of appeals held that R.C. 2305.19 applied to claims against an estate. Vitantonio, 2006 Ohio 1685, P15. Specifically, the court of appeals found that "we see no significant distinction between will contest actions and claims against the estate for purposes of this appeal. If the Supreme Court can extend its reasoning applied in cases dealing with workers' compensation claims and age discrimination claims to will contest actions, then we cannot conclude that the same rationale should not be extended to claims against the estate. "Just as the Supreme Court reasoned in Allen with respect to will contests, we conclude here that there is nothing in the savings sic statute that would proscribe its application to claims against the estate, nor is there anything in the presentation of claims against the estate statute that indicates the savings sic statute should not apply . Thus, since the plaintiffs met the threshold requirements of R.C. 2305.19, presenting their claims against the estate within the statutory limits of R.C. 2117.06, and then subsequently commenced the initial action in the common pleas court within the time frame set forth in R.C. 2117.12, we will not send the plaintiffs' claims to the 'twilight zone' simply because they voluntarily dismissed them initially." Id. at P29-30.