OPINION
DARDEN, Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gatlin Plumbing & Heating, Inc. (Gat-lin) appeals the denial of its objection to the trial courts order in the Matter of the Estate of Robert H. Yeager (the Estate) that directed the transfer of 63 shares of Gatlin capital stock held by the late Robert H. Yeager (Robert).
We affirm.
ISSUES
1. Whether the trial court erred when it held that Gatlins objection was barred by Indiana Code section 29-1-14-1.
2. Whether the trial court erred when it held that Gatlins objection based on the Shareholders Agreement was not timely.
3. Whether the trial court erred when it did not vacate its transfer order.
FACTS
In 1951, Robert married Musetta Gatlin (Musetta). On June 27, 1957, Gatlin was formed. On December 16, 1975, a Shareholders Agreement was signed for Gatlin, noting the growth of Gatlin and naming its current shareholders as Ivan Gatlin, Chief Operating Executive, with 1080 shares; Marjorie Gatlin, with 491 shares; and 10 shares each held by Iris Tamminga, Doris Cox, Musetta, John Gatlin, Darl Gatlin, and Roger Gatlin. (App.84). The Shareholders Agreement initially recited that its purpose was to provide for the possibility of death of the parties, and for the continued profitable operation of the business in the event of Ivan Gatlins or Marjorie Gatlins death. (App.84, 85). Stating that open market ... sale without restriction of shares was not advisable, it sought to restrict [ ] the privilege of owning shares. ). Article V, entitled Death of a Shareholder," then specified as follows:
In the event of the death of any person who is not a descendant of Ivan Gatlin and Marjorie Gatlin and who is holding shares of stock of this CORPORATION, in their own name individually or as a surviving joint tenant, the CORPORATION shall have the option, within sixty (60) days after such decease, or within thirty (30) days after the appointment and qualification of an executor or administrator of the estate of such decedent, to purchase any or all of the shares of stock of such decedent, at a price as provided in ARTICLE II, Paragraph 5, hereof, and upon a tender of the amount of such purchase price to the heirs or legal representatives of such decedent, the heirs or legal representatives shall thereupon surrender to the CORPORATION the certificates evidencing ownership of such shares of stock.
(App.89).
On May 15, 1979, an amendment to the Shareholders Agreement noted that Gatlin had additional shareholders who [were] not signators to the December 1975 agreement, and the wish and desire of all existing shareholders of the corporation that all current and future shareholders be bound by that Agreement. (App.52). Accordingly, the undersigned, being all of the current shareholders of the corporation, ... agree[d] to be bound by all the terms of the December 1975 Shareholders Agreement. Id. Both Robert and Musetta signed the May 1979 amendment as shareholders.
On October 25, 2006, Robert died. On July 11, 2007, an Indiana inheritance tax return was filed.
On June 4, 2008, his widow, Musetta, and her co-successor trustee of the Yeager Joint Trust filed an affidavit of entitlement pursuant to Indiana Code section 29-1-8-4.5 The affidavit stated that Robert had died testate but the will (provided therewith) was not probated as the estate was of minimal value; and seeking an order, pursuant to the terms of Roberts will and the Yeager Joint Trust, directing Gatlin to transfer Roberts 63 shares of Gatlin capital stock-32 shares to Musetta and Belinda Hamacher, as successor co-trustees of the Joint Trust; and 31 shares to Musetta as trustee of the Musetta Yeager Trust. Also on June 4, 2004, Musetta and her co-successor trustee filed an affidavit for transfer of personal property. That same day, June 4, 2004, the trial court issued its order on affidavit of entitlement, holding that the affiants were entitled to the transfer of the 63 shares of Gatlin stock in Roberts name. (App.18).
On June 19, 2008, Gatlin filed its objection to the order, stating that it was an interested party because it h[elld a valid right to purchase the Gatlin stock ordered to be transferred. (App.21). Gatlin cited Article V as giving it the right to purchase stock from a deceased shareholder within 30 days after the appointment and qualification of an executor or administrator. Id. Gatlin asserted that there had been no executor or administrator appointed in this estate due to the amount of assets being under $50,000.00; and that due to the lack of an executor or administrator, the 80-day period for the corporation to exercise its right should run from the date of the Order transferring the stock, as that was the first instance that a right existed in order to transfer said stock. (App.21, 22).
Subsequently, Gatlin submitted its memorandum of law in support of its objection to the order to transfer, and its designation of undisputed material facts. Gatlin repeatedly argued its right to repurchase stock from a deceased stockholder within thirty (30) days after the appointment and qualification of an executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased shareholder. (App.55, 57, 59). It argued that because there was no executor or administrator of the estate appointed, the first opportunity for transfer of stock pursuant to the Shareholders Agreement provision was either upon the filing of the affidavit of entitlement or the trial courts order of June 4, 2008. (App.55, 59). Its arguments made no reference to the option provided in the Shareholders Agreement whereby Gatlin could within sixty (60) days after Roberts death, exercise the option of purchasing his share of stock by tendering the price as specified. (App.89). Nor did Gatlin designate any evidence or make any argument that it was unaware of Roberts death on October 25, 2006.
The Estates brief in response noted that Gatlin had the option of acting within sixty days of Roberts death to purchase his stock, and that it had failed to exercise this option. An affidavit by Musetta recited her November 2007 conversations with Gatlin shareholders indicating that Gatlin would not pursue purchase of the stock; and chronicled her fruitless correspondence, after employing counsel, from June of 2007 through March of 2008 asking Gat-lin to transfer Roberts stock before filing the affidavit of entitlement on June 4, 2008.
On June 19, 2009, the trial court issued its order. It found that Gatlin had neither exercised its option within sixty days of Roberts death, as provided in the Shareholders Agreement, nor open[ed] an estate itself-which it could have done pursuant to the Probate Code as an interested party. (App.132). Concluding that Gatlin had failed to exercise its legal rights in a timely manner, the trial court denied its objection to the order that Gat-lin transfer the stock held in Roberts name.
DECISION
1... Indiana Code section 29-1-14-1
Gatlin first argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it held that its objection, seeking to exercise its option to purchase Roberts share, was time-barred pursuant to Indiana Code seetion 29-1-14-1. As it correctly notes, appellate review of the trial courts interpretation of a statute is de movo. See, e.g., Gibson v. Hernandez, 764 N.E.2d 253, 255 (Ind.Ct.App.2002).
Indiana Code section 29-1-14-1 expressly provides limitations on filing claims against a decedents estate. We have frequently held, however, that a claim, as the term is used in that particular statutory provision, refers to a debt or demand of a pecuniary nature which could have been enforced against the decedent in his lifetime and could have been reduced to a simple money judgment. Cardwell v. Estate of Kirkendall, 712 N.E.2d 1047, 1049 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (citing Matter of Williams Estate, 398 N.E.2d 1368, 1370 (Ind.Ct.App.1980); Ostheimer v. McNutt, 116 Ind.App. 649, 652, 66 N.E.2d 142 (1946); Tinkham v. Tinkham, 112 Ind. App. 532, 538, 45 N.E.2d 357 (1942)). The option given to Gatlin by the Shareholders Agreement to purchase Roberts stock was not a debt or demand of a pecuniary nature which Gatlin could have enforced against him in his lifetime. Hence, Gat-lins objection was not time-barred pursuant to Indiana Code section 29-1-14-1.
We do not read the trial courts conclusion that Gatlins objection was untimely, however, to be solely grounded on that statutory provision. The Probate Code defines interested persons as
heirs, devisees, spouses, creditors, or any other having a property right in or claim against the estate of a decedent being administered. This meaning may vary at different stages and different parts of a proceeding and must be determined according to the particular purpose and matter involved.
IC. § 29-1-1-3. The Code further provides that after the death of a testator,
[al verified written application may be filed by or on behalf of any interested person ..., in any court having jurisdiction of the administration of the decedents estate for an order of that court against any person who is alleged to have the custody of the will of said person so dying, to produce said will before said court ... in order that said will may be probated.
I.C. § 29-1-7-3. More specifically, [alny interested person ... may petition the court ... to have the will of such decedent ... probated, and to have letters testamentary issued to the named executor or an administrator appointed. I.C. § 29-1-7-4. Thus, as the trial court correctly noted, Gatlin could have opened an estate as an interested party, but failed to do so. (App.132).
2. Shareholders Agreement
Gatlin also argues that the trial court erred when it did not find that Gat-lins objection was a valid exercise of its option to purchase in accordance with the Shareholders Agreement. Provisions of a shareholder agreement that restrict the transfer of stock are treated as contracts either between shareholders or between shareholders and the corporation. F.B.I. Farms, Inc. v. Moore, 798 N.E.2d 440, 445 (Ind.2003). The interpretation of a contract is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. Dunn v. Meridian Mut. Ins. Co., 836 N.E.2d 249, 251 (Ind.2005) If the terms of the contract are clear and unambiguous, courts must give those terms their clear and ordinary meaning. Id. Restrictions on transfer are to be read, like any other contract, to further the manifest intention of the parties. F.B.I., 798 N.E.2d at 445-46. Because they are restrictions on alienation and therefore disfavored, the terms in the restrictions are not to be expanded beyond their plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 446.
Gatlin reminds us that the Shareholders Agreement contained two time periods for Gatlin to exercise its option to buy back stock from a deceased shareholder. Gatlins Br. at 13. According to Gatlin, these two time periods are (1) the sixty-days-after death period, and (2) the period within thirty days of the appointment and qualification of an executor or administrator of an estate. Gatlin argues that the Agreements use of the word or between the two time periods, indica[tes] the various parts of the sentence it connects are to be taken separately. Id. at 18-14 (citing 26 I.L.E. Statutes § T7 (2004)). Gatlin appears to posit that the Shareholders Agreement clearly endowed it two separate opportunities to exercise its option to buy back its stock; and, therefore, failure to exercise one opportunity must necessarily leave it with the second opportunity to act. We cannot agree.
The LL.E. provision cited by Gatlin specifically states that
[tlhe words and and or, as used in statutes are not interchangeable, being strictly of a conjunctive and disjunctive nature respectively, and their ordinary meaning should be followed if it does not render the sense of the statute dubious.
26 LLE. Statutes § T7 (2004). According to the dictionary, the word or is used as a function word to indicate (1) an alternative between different or unlike things, states, or actions ...; (2) choice between alternative things, states or actions.... Waeesters Tairp New Internationat Dic. 1585 (4th ed.1976). In other words, the Shareholders Agreement provided Gatlin with two alternatives We find that acceptance of Gatlins argument would replace this common and ordinary meaning of the word or with the meaning for the word and-along with or together with, ... added to, id. at 80; and would impermissibly make the two words interchangeable. TLL.E. at Stat, utes § T7. Therefore, Gatlins argument that the trial court erred when it failed to find that the Shareholders Agreement permitted it to exercise its second option to purchase the stock after the trial courts issuance of its June 4, 2008 order must fail.
3. Statutory Compliance
Gatlin next argues that the trial court erred when it denied its objection to the order of transfer because averments within the Estates affidavit of entitlement as to the minimal value of the estate were not sustained by the evidence. The trial court found Gatlins argument on the issue regarding the Affidavit of Entitlement had become moot, given its conclusion that Gatlin had failed to exercise its legal rights in a timely manner. (App. 133).
We note, as quoted above, that when Gatlin filed its objection to the trial courts transfer order, it expressly asserted that the amount of the Estates assets was under $50,000.00. (App.21). Judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with one previously asserted, and it precludes a party from repudiating assertions in the partys own pleadings. PSI Energy, Inc. v. Roberts, 829 N.E.2d 943, 957 (Ind.2005), on rehg 834 N.E.2d 665.
We find no common law pertaining to Chapter 8 of the Probate Code as to dispensing with administration for estates with minimal gross probate value, or the specific provision for an affidavit of entitlement. Nevertheless, as indicated above, there has never been an allegation by Gat-lin that it was unaware of Roberts death. According to Musettas affidavit, within days of Roberts October 25, 2006, death and before his funeral, donations made in memory of Robert were received by his church from Roger Gatlin, president of Gatlin, and from the Gatlin corporation. (App.81). Further, within the year following Roberts death, Gatlin shareholders advised Musetta that Gatlin would not seek to purchase the stock in Roberts name, and beginning in June of 2007, Musetta, after hiring counsel, directed written inquiries to Gatlin requesting transfer of the stock. Yet, as of June 4, 2008, when the affidavits were filed in the Estate, no action had been taken by Gatlin to open an estate for the purpose of asserting an interest in Roberts stock.
Indiana Code section 29-1~-8-4.5 provides that upon receipt of an affidavit of entitlement containing certain averments, the trial court may, without notice and hearing, enter an order that the claimant is entitled to payment or delivery of the property sought by the affidavit. In the face of Gatlins objection to the courts order thereon, we find that the trial courts equity jurisdiction would apply. The trial courts equity jurisdiction, however, is evoked by a showing of conscience, constant good faith, and reasonable diligence, to aid the party which has not slept on its rights. See Engel v. Mathley, 113 Ind.App. 458, 48 N.E.2d 463, 466 (1943) (quoting 1 Pomsroys Equiry JurIsPRUDENCE § 419, p. 785 (4th ed.)). This principle is expressed in the maxim, equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights. 12 LLE. Equity § 23 (2009). Here, the trial court found that Gatlin had failed to act in a timely manner to exercise its option to repurchase stock. App. 132. The evidence supports that finding, and the finding supports the trial courts conclusion. Therefore, we find no error here.
Affirmed.
KIRSCH, J., concurs.
MAY, J., dissents with separate opinion.
. Musetta was the daughter of Ivan and Marjorie Gatlin.
. We note that our review of the record was impeded by the form of its compilation. The Table of Contents reflects material from pages 1 through 137. However, the contents that follow are pages 1 through 37; then 65 through 100; 63 and 64; 38 through 62; and, finally, 101 through 137.
. According to Musettas affidavit of October 24, 2008, she worked in the family business which is Gatlin Plumbing & Heating, Inc. for fifty-two (52) years. (App.81).
. Chapter 8 of the probate code provides a mechanism for dispensing with administration in an estate of minimal gross probate value. Section 4.5 thereof provides that where there is no administration of such an estate,
[tlhe person claiming to be entitled to payment or delivery of the property belonging to the decedent may present to the court having jurisdiction over the decedents estate an affidavit containing a statement of the conditions required under section (1)(b) [LC. § 29-18(1)(b)] of this chapter. Upon receipt of the affidavit, the court may, without notice and hearing, enter an order that the claimant is entitled to payment or delivery of the property.
LC. § 29-1-8-4.5.
. Specifically, the statute provides that administration may be dispensed with when the value of the gross probate estate does not exceed $50,000.00. L.C. § 29-1-8-1(b)(1).