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
187 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.jones Nov 10.

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

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 Philip Brutz on Friday.

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

Philip Brutz replied to M Thomas's discussion 'Another Judge affirms the "automatic" nature of the 1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act and applies it in a recent case'
"http://w***********/ohio-dma?utm_source=Utica+Journal+%2348&utm_campaign=Oil+and+Gas+Newsletter&utm_medium=email Seventh District Court of Appeals Reaffirms Fixed Look Back Period Under The 1989 Version of Ohio's Dormant Mineral…"
Friday
m.jones replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"yes, there is a lot to take in from it all."
Nov 10
deutchen replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Perhaps the most important case before the Ohio supreme court is Corban v Chesapeake. This may determine this very important matter once & for all. Read about it…"
Nov 4
m.jones replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"M. Thomas have you heard any more about the Supreme Court hearings? Is there another sight that has info about other cases going to Appellate Court? Seems like it is a stand still at this point."
Nov 4
M Thomas replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"The 5th District applied the 1989 version of the DMA in Wendt v Dickerson. Both the 5th and 7th compromise the territory of the Utica Shale formation. http://www.ohiodormantmineralact.com/wendt-v-dickerson-5th-district/"
Oct 17
Dott replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"I know some of this has already been discussed OH: Recent 7th District DMA Decisions POSTED ON OCTOBER 2, 2014 BY VORYS Email This Print Recently, the Seventh District Court of Appeals ruled on two cases involving the 1989 and 2006 versions…"
Oct 3
deutchen replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"you can read about supreme court case number 2014-0804, corban v chesapeake below. This is the case that will decide this issue once & for all. The merit briefs of both sides are here to…"
Oct 2
bessieblues replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Definition of rant: speak or shout at LENGTH in a wild or impassioned way. Eisenbarth v. Reusser. 26 page rant. Ok we get it , you are against the 1989 DMA judge Degenaro. Farnsworth v. Burkhart. 11 page rant reciting much of what was said in the…"
Oct 2
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-4184.pdf This one reverses lower court ruling, because of fixed lookback, not rolling lookback regarding 1989 DMA. Also upholds a claim to perserve mineral rights filed under the 2006…"
Oct 2
Marc replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"If you're paranoid (seems to described bessieblues) you don't need evidence that the rest of the world has a personal interest against you. You just know it. It's called 'paranoia'. Congrats bessieb, you just defined two…"
Oct 2
deutchen replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Yea. Hopefully her personal interest is wanting to be on the right side of the question of 1989 vs 2006 when it comes thru the supreme court."
Oct 2
Dexter Green replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Please post evidence of said personal interest on this issue.  I'd be curious to see how the judge is profiting/benefiting from her ruling."
Oct 2
Marc replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"'Rant' - definition (see above, bessieblues' comment)."
Oct 2
Marc replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Impressive logical leap there, bud. Very classy."
Oct 2
bessieblues replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"Looks like a repeat of the last two rants. Degenaro must have some personal interests on this issue."
Oct 1
M Thomas replied to M Thomas's discussion '1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties'
"The 7th District ruled on the 1989 DMA and found it to be constitutional. Tribett v Shepherd http://www.ohiodormantmineralact.com/tribett-v-shepherd-7th-district/ Furthermore, the Ohio statute contains a three-year grace period. This three…"
Oct 1

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

Subscribe to Weekly Shale