1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties

The 1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act has now been applied by 6 Judges in 6 different counties.

Tuscawaras - Wendt v Dickerson - Feb 21, 2013

Monroe - Eisenbarth v Reusser - June 6, 2013

Jefferson - Shannon v Householder - July 17, 2013

Columbiana - Bender v Morgan - March 20, 2013

Noble - Walker v Noon - March 20, 2013

Morgan - Wiseman v Potts - June 29, 2010

They have all concluded that it does apply when reviewing a title and that it was an automatic abandoning.

Go here to read the new decisions.

Views: 33858

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I find it encouraging from a mineral owners standpoint that they interpreted a title transaction so liberally. I think this lends hope that they may consider a reference to previously separated mineral rights by volume & page in a deed as a title transaction & thus a saving event. Walker v Nau will ultimately decide everything.

  I think it's also encouraging that the chief justice definitely took the side of Nau, the mineral owner, during oral arguments for Walker v Nau. Hopefully it won't be too much longer for a decision to be reached.

THE QUESTIONS:


A. The Certified Questions
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned certifies the following
questions of state law to the Supreme Court of Ohio pursuant to Rule 9.01 of the
Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio:
1) Is the recorded lease of a severed subsurface mineral estate a title transaction under the ODMA, Ohio Revised Code § 5301.56(5)(3)(a)?
AND
2) Is the expiration of a recorded lease and the reversion of the rights granted under that lease a title transaction that restarts the twenty-year forfeiture clock under the ODMA at the time of the reversion?

THE ANSWERS:

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., et al. Case No. 2014-0067 v. JUDGMENT ENTRY Kenneth Buell et al. ~ This cause, here on the certification of a state law question from the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, was considered in the manner prescribed by law. Upon review pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R, 9.08, the court answers the first certified state-law question in the affirmative and the second certified state—law question in the negative, consistent with the opinion rendered herein.
(U.S. Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division; No. 2:12-CV-916)

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service