M Thomas
  • Business Owner
Share Twitter

M Thomas's Groups

M Thomas's Discussions

Automatic Vesting of 1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act - Recent Court Cases

There is a new Belmont County case, which speaks extensively about the 1989 ODMA, automatic vesting, and the nature of the vested right that it gave surface owners.It came out last October…Continue

Started Jan 16

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

The 1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act has now been applied by 6 Judges in 6 different counties.Tuscawaras - Wendt v Dickerson - Feb 21, 2013Monroe - Eisenbarth v Reusser - June 6, 2013Jefferson - Shannon…Continue

Tags: 1989, act, mineral, dormant, ohio

Started this discussion. Last reply by bessieblues on Saturday.

Another Judge affirms the "automatic" nature of the 1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act and applies it in a recent case
1 Reply

So far all cases that have decided on the 1989 version of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act in the state of Ohio seem to have unanimously concurred that the 1989 is automatic and that it is to be applied…Continue

Started this discussion. Last reply by M Thomas Jun 24, 2013.

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, 2013.

Gifts Received

Gift

M Thomas has not received any gifts yet

Give a Gift

 

M Thomas's Page

Latest Activity

bessieblues replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Very interesting in that this may help demonstrate the intent of section D(1) of the 1989 DMA. Check my response to Ryan C yesterday."
Saturday
m.jones replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"I mean word to have meaning its late."
Saturday
m.jones replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Bessie What do you mean interesting? The Service Commission stated each preceding 20 years I also have a copy of that page  myself that came from the Supreme Court Law Library in Columbus, OH. The appellate judges are to read every work to…"
Saturday
bessieblues replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"This looks like the original draft? It puts me in mind of the oral arguments during the Chesapeake v. Buell case at the Ohio Supreme Court, discussing whether a lease constitutes a savings event under the DMA? Apparently a lease was mentioned…"
Saturday
ryan c replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Here is the PDF File of p.38 of the legislative service commission report"
Friday
ryan c replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Bessieblues, correction to the "Each" on the original ODMA , however the Ohio Legislative Service Commission Stated in 1989 Each Preceding 20 years, the report was published December, 1988 ,p38.  I will post a pdf copy on here shortly"
Friday
Den replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/7/2014/2014-ohio-4001.pdf Another ruling for automatic abandonment under 1989, even though filed after the 2006."
Friday
Den replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"The end of the ruling is still missing from the pdf file.  The end page should show the judges names. "
Friday
bessieblues replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Ryan c, I agree with you on this issue but on different grounds. The original 1989 DMA states within THE preceding 20 years, not EACH. However section D (1) of the original 1989 DMA refers to successive filings of a claim to preserve. To me that…"
Friday
ryan c replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"The 1989 and 2006 are identical, 20 years of nonuse the mineral rights are vested to the surface owner.  The only difference is the notice requirement in section E of the 2006. Just reminding everyone THE CURRENT ODMA IS STILL A 20 YEAR ROLLING…"
Friday
ryan c replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"I know there are a lot of biased people on here. I can handle if they declare the 1989 ODMA unconstitutional. But what I cant handle is a decision from 2 judges becoming law that the 1989 ODMA is a static statute when it is clearly not.…"
Friday
RAYMOND bAUMAN replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"What DMA were written for:  MORE IMPORTANT  A MESSAGE TO SELLERS OF ROYALTY Let us not forget the original purpose of  the Dormant Mineral Acts as Industry used them was to clear up a property where  the Landowners Royalty was…"
Sep 16
Dott replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"This Law Firm explains the rulings. Permitting/Regulating Issues 09/12/2014 Ohio Seventh District Court of Appeals Issues Recent Ruling in a Case Concerning the Application of Ohio’s Dormant Mineral Act Ohio’s Seventh District Court of…"
Sep 15
deutchen replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Finnbear, Go to the link posted by Ohioshale, the appellate decision for Eisenbarth v Reusser. She goes on for pages & pages about her reasoning on the case."
Sep 15
bessieblues replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Ohio Shale, as I stated on Sept. 4,some members are confusing ONE judges opinion on the 7th district that the 1989 DMA cannot be considered effective ( Eisenbarth v. Reusser ) The majority have ruled that it can be used effectively upon certain…"
Sep 15
Bluflame replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"  Once the Ohio Supreme Court renders an opinion, can it be appealed to the US Supreme Court? (Cannot believe it could not be appealed) If so, and considering the $$$ involved as you've noted, I cannot imagine that some…"
Sep 15

Profile Information

What is your role in the Marcellus?
Business Owner
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 GMS: All things pertaining to the Marcellus & Utica shale plays to add comments!

Join GMS: All things pertaining to the Marcellus & Utica shale plays

  • No comments yet!
 
 
 

Local Groups

advertisements