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
91 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 M Thomas Apr 9.

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

M Thomas replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"In Walker v Noon, the 7th District has rightly found that 1989 ODMA was in fact an automatic abandonment and that the 2006 version does not apply retroactively, but prospectively.This is definitely an epic moment in the development of Ohio's…"
Apr 9
Magnetron12 replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"All of these cases involve single parcels. Does anyone have any ODMA information regarding mineral right owners of multiple parcels? Indiana"s DMA appears to give them more leeway and I question whether Ohio may follow their lead?"
Mar 17
bessieblues replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Check out yet another case in favor of the 1989 dormant act. Reservation of Mineral Rights in 80 year old deed is abandoned by operation of law SCOTT SIMPKINS THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2014 AT 4:34PM On February 21, 2014, the Monroe County Court of Common…"
Mar 15
M Thomas replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Here's a new case to follow, identical to the Chesapeake v Buell case: The village of Jewett  in Harrison County is suing North American Coal and Chesapeake arguing that the mineral rights vested according to the 1989…"
Feb 24
Magnetron12 replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"I agree the use it or lose it statue is too harsh considering the mobil society we live in. People are constantly moving out of state or within and trying to keep track of every asset becomes cumberson."
Feb 12
ryan c replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"The 1989 DMA came in effect to quiet old mineral reservations where people passed away and there was no one to claim the minerals... So that way all of the minerals for that property can be used. The surface owner pays for the property and…"
Feb 12
Dee replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Some discouraged it as a nuisance. I had several recorders roll their eyes when I went in to record our mineral rights. Why bother, there is nothing there, and such statements. One Court employee openly ridiculed me when I bought some mineral rights…"
Feb 12
Dee replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"If I own something and am not using it, whether it was given to me or I bought it; nobody has the right to take it. The law was put in place to make it easier for the O&G folks to lease. That was stated in the news articles of time. It is not…"
Feb 12
ryan c replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"All the counties at that time had the tax parcels for the minerals. People just didn't want to pay the tax for something that wasn't worth anything at the time. "
Feb 12
Magnetron12 replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Until recently how many counties had separate tax parcels for the land and the minerals? I believe that's where a lot of this ambiguity lies."
Feb 12
ryan c replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"I dont see it as unconstitutional, use it or lose it... alls the mineral owner had to do was reserve the rights to there minerals, via title transaction or by a tax parcel id number is that really that hard of a thing to do???  Show your…"
Feb 12
Dee replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"I was correct in 89 when this law came about that it would create a mess. All the points of contention that I saw are stated in these posts here. I was most upset that property could be taken from someone and given to another when there had been no…"
Feb 12
Marc replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"i.e., those trial decisions listed by M Thomas that pre-date Sept. 23, 2013 (excluding, of course, those listed that originate outside the 7th District.)"
Feb 7
DCG replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Marc, Did you ever get a chance to research and post the "old contrary decisions" that were overturned by the 7th district that someone posted a couple of days ago?   Sorry, I missed the post,...maybe you can post again?"
Feb 7
Marc replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"The dye has been cast, the Court of Appeals has spoken for the area where the bulk of Utica development is occurring, and the 2006 amendments speak for themselves. These cranks are just that - cranks."
Feb 7
Marc replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Yes, very smart, accuse six judges, three trial and three appellate,  from four difference jurisdictions of being part of a grand conspiracy.Surely, you're onto something and you will expose something of great magnitude and importance very…"
Feb 7

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 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