"US Supreme Court - Texaco v Short on "automatic abandonment"
In 1971 the Indiana Legislature enacted a statue providing that served mineral interest that in not used for a period of 20 years automatically lapses and reverts to the…"
All things pertaining to the Marcellus & Utica Shale
-
M Thomas
- Business Owner
- Blog Posts
- Discussions (9)
- Events
- Local Groups (1)
- Photos
- Photo Albums
- Marcellus Videos
M Thomas's Discussions
Court Rules 1989 Version of Dormant Mineral Act Vested Mineral Rights in Surface Owner
43 Replies
Just saw this new case concerning the Ohio Dormant Mineral Acthttp://www.ohiodormantmineralact.com/Wendt v DickersonIt seems like any mineral…Continue
Started this discussion. Last reply by E Johnson Mar 28.
Gifts Received
M Thomas has not received any gifts yet
M Thomas's Page
Latest Activity
E Johnson replied to M Thomas's discussion 'Court Rules 1989 Version of Dormant Mineral Act Vested Mineral Rights in Surface Owner'"Anyone know who the lawyers were than worked on the Walker v. Noon case?"
M Thomas replied to john goodday's discussion 'Dormant Mineral Statue - 5301.56'"I'll repeat this here -
Three separate judges in three different counties have concluded that a mere mention of a previous reservation does not constitute being the "subject of a title transaction", and thus a saving event.
They all…"
M Thomas replied to john goodday's discussion 'Dormant Mineral Statue - 5301.56'"Three separate judges in three different counties have concluded that a mere mention of a previous reservation does not constitute being the "subject of a title transaction", and thus a saving event.
They all can't be wrong.
Dodd v…"
M Thomas replied to M Thomas's discussion 'Court Rules 1989 Version of Dormant Mineral Act Vested Mineral Rights in Surface Owner'"From what I understand, many many in 1992.
But really any reservation that has no saving event before 1986. See attorney Nathan Vaughan's article explaining it -
Mineral Reservations Prior to 1986 Called Into Question Under Prior Ohio's…"
M Thomas replied to M Thomas's discussion 'Court Rules 1989 Version of Dormant Mineral Act Vested Mineral Rights in Surface Owner'"It is interesting to note that Judge Nau in Walker v Noon orders that any appeal to the 2006 amended version of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act is "moot". This holds the same position as Wendt v Dickerson and Wiseman v Potts.This…"
Dan replied to M Thomas's discussion 'Court Rules 1989 Version of Dormant Mineral Act Vested Mineral Rights in Surface Owner'"Another case just came cown, this time in Noble county on March 20, that went the same way as Wendt v Dickerson, and in fact cites it in the record:"
Suzanne Perks replied to M Thomas's discussion 'Court Rules 1989 Version of Dormant Mineral Act Vested Mineral Rights in Surface Owner'"Only if I'm keeping the watch in your dresser drawer for 20 years. There comes a point where you either claim it ( as the law states) or you lose it."
Dan replied to M Thomas's discussion 'Court Rules 1989 Version of Dormant Mineral Act Vested Mineral Rights in Surface Owner'"James, I understand that at this point the level at which this case was argued does not set legal precedent, in the sense that it could be referenced by another court. But the way it was argued has the markings of a precedant-setting case…"
Gary Miller replied to M Thomas's discussion 'Court Rules 1989 Version of Dormant Mineral Act Vested Mineral Rights in Surface Owner'"
My lease is somewhat unique, 10 pages long from a old Akron Boy Scout Camp. 1982 lease, wells still producing.
Some of the terms stated are:
Number and location of wells- Lessee is to drill 2 un-unitized wells on the leased…"
Finnbear replied to M Thomas's discussion 'Court Rules 1989 Version of Dormant Mineral Act Vested Mineral Rights in Surface Owner'"Did you include a Pugh clause and a unit size limitation in that old shallow well lease? If you did, they could only hold what is in the drilling unit for the well and would be required to release the rest. These ideas are not new with the shale…"
Gary Miller replied to M Thomas's discussion 'Court Rules 1989 Version of Dormant Mineral Act Vested Mineral Rights in Surface Owner'"Thanks for the information.
I have had two attorneys say it would be something they could try regarding implied covenants but it is not a sure thing. They did not seem to interested,they suggested it might be best to stay in good relations with…"
Gary Miller replied to M Thomas's discussion 'Court Rules 1989 Version of Dormant Mineral Act Vested Mineral Rights in Surface Owner'"Question.
Why would the same not be true for the oil and gas companies with the old shallow well leases, many are holding excess acreage beyond the 40 acres required for the well? I don't see a whole lot of difference, to me 20…"
jesse replied to M Thomas's discussion 'Court Rules 1989 Version of Dormant Mineral Act Vested Mineral Rights in Surface Owner'"it is ok to take gas and oil but coal can not be taken back and you cannot take back from the goverment if you can take back from an individual you should be able to take back from the goverment "
Suzanne Perks replied to M Thomas's discussion 'Court Rules 1989 Version of Dormant Mineral Act Vested Mineral Rights in Surface Owner'""Many of the people who are now outraged over the Dormant Minerals Act are mad because they are "losing" mineral rights they either didn't bother to protect or had no idea they owned until the notice declaring the…"
Katie Crow replied to M Thomas's discussion 'Court Rules 1989 Version of Dormant Mineral Act Vested Mineral Rights in Surface Owner'"So... I am going to take that Rolex watch you paid ten thousand for but have not been worn in years because you are not using it and I would. Does that seem right to you? If it is your property, why would anybody have a right to take…"
Profile Information
- What is your role in the Marcellus?
- Business Owner
- Why are you here?
- Business Opportunities
- Which state(s) are you following?
- West Virginia, Ohio
- What shale plays do you follow?
- Marcellus, Utica
Comment Wall
You need to be a member of Go Marcellus & Utica Shale: Leasing, Drilling & Mineral Rights to add comments!
Join Go Marcellus & Utica Shale: Leasing, Drilling & Mineral Rights
- No comments yet!
Local Groups
-
Hancock County, WV
59 members
-
Trumbull County, OH
254 members
-
United Shale Owners of A…
216 members
-
Beaver County, PA
153 members
-
Ashtabula County, OH
270 members
-
Bradford County, PA
422 members
-
Belmont County, OH
294 members
-
Mercer County, PA
246 members
-
Wetzel County, WV
123 members
-
Harrison County, OH
329 members
Like Us
Follow Us
Subscribe
Join our lists
Top Content on GMS
© 2013 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
| h2 | h2 | h2 |
|---|---|---|
AboutWhat makes this site so great? Well, I think it's the fact that, quite frankly, we all have a lot at stake in this thing they call shale. But beyond that, this site is made up of individuals who have worked hard for that little yard we call home. Or, that farm on which blood, sweat and tears have fallen. [ Read More ] |
Links |
Tools & Apps |
Royalty Calc for iPhone
Royalty Cal for Blackberry
Oil and Gas Royalty CalcCopyright © 2012 GOMarcellusShale.com
