Dodd v. Croskey Case

Why wasn't the 1989 DMA used in the Dodd v. Croskey Case?  

Views: 3347

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by deutchen on February 12, 2014 at 1:56pm

Good question. Did Dodds attorney screw up. Another question is why didn't the judges in the case rule on the "auto vesting" theory many have proposed the 1989 version suggests? Is it because it wasn't brought up by Dodds attorney or was it because the judges in the Dodd case felt the 2006 version ruled. That's the question that will decide everything when the next appeal comes through the 7th district court, probably Walker v Noon.

  

Permalink Reply by ryan c on February 12, 2014 at 2:55pm

Yea, Im assuming Dodds lawyer messed up. I found out that the Appeals courts can only review what is given in the briefing, so they couldn't rule on the 1989 Act even if they felt it applied. I read through that case a few times and didn't see any title transactions that would stop the 1989 DMA  from automatically vesting the rights to the surface owner. So that one will end up having to go back to court giving a different approach.

Permalink Reply by ohioshale on February 13, 2014 at 3:53am

The Court of Appeals explicitly acknowledged its awareness of the 1989 Act in the section discussing Riddel v. Layman.  Appears the Court used the 2006 Act.  Probably under the theory that you cannot use a law that was repealed and amended - unless, of course, you brought a lawsuit or filed something prior to 2006.

Permalink Reply by ryan c on February 14, 2014 at 7:32am

That doesn't make sense though, how can you undo something that was done?  The 1989 Act was an automatic abandoning procedure, which is what all these cases are being judged on.

Permalink Reply by deutchen on February 14, 2014 at 9:06am

There have been 3 cases that have been decided recently in favor of the mineral owners since the Dodd appeal was decided. All three decided against the "automatic vesting" interpretation & against using the 1989 version of the DMA. Two used Dodd v Croskey as a reason why. See Dahlgren v Brown, Gentile V Ackerman, & MH Partnership v Hines.

Permalink Reply by ohioshale on February 14, 2014 at 10:07am

Here's 2 other cases to add to your list: Bayes v. Sylvester and Scott v. Coleman.  They also ruled for the mineral owners and against "automatic vesting" and also used Dodd v. Croskey as a reason why.

Permalink Reply by Laura on February 14, 2014 at 3:09pm
"Bayes v. Sylvester and Scott v. Coleman" can you tell me where I can find these cases? Are they online? thank you
Permalink Reply by Michael Kasler on February 15, 2014 at 4:27am

Bayes v. Sylvester is one of our cases, and "automatic vesting" has never been an issue in this case.  In fact the initial reservation occurred in 1987, and there were numerous title transactions that occurred between then and the abandonment effort by the Bayes.  This case has always dealt with the 2006 amended version of the DMA, specifically the fact that the Sylvesters recorded their preservation documents after  Bayes published notice of their intent to abandon.  The Sylvesters did this within the 60 days required by the statute (5301.56H).

The Bayes are appealing Judge Selmon's decision (Monroe County Common Pleas Court) because they do not agree with the Seventh District's ruling in Dodd v. Croskey that 5301.56H allows the mineral owner to record their preservation documents within 60 days AFTER the surface owner has provided notice of the intent to abandon, which thereby has the same effect at preserving the mineral interest as would a title transaction occurring within the 20 years PRIOR to the notice being given as in 5301.56B.

Permalink Reply by deutchen on February 15, 2014 at 10:25am

I don't understand what the Bayes expect to gain by appealing to the 7th district court, the same court that made the decision they don't agree with? Do they expect the 7th district court of appeals to reverse their own decision that they made in Dodd v Croskey or what?

Permalink Reply by Michael Kasler on February 16, 2014 at 4:15am

My guess is that they are just keeping the case alive until the Ohio Supreme Court rules on the Dodd case.  If the Dodd case survives, then I doubt if the Bayes case will.

Permalink Reply by buc booster on February 16, 2014 at 4:19am

Michael,

  Is there any inkling of when that ruling might come down?

Permalink Reply by Michael Kasler on February 16, 2014 at 4:41am

This is a very important issue before the Ohio Supreme Court, and I imagine that the Justices are feeling a lot of pressure.  I think that they will take their time to make sure that they get it right.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service