1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties
The 1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act has now been applied by 6 Judges in 6 different counties.
Tuscawaras - Wendt v Dickerson - Feb 21, 2013
Monroe - Eisenbarth v Reusser - June 6, 2013
Jefferson - Shannon v Householder - July 17, 2013
Columbiana - Bender v Morgan - March 20, 2013
Noble - Walker v Noon - March 20, 2013
Morgan - Wiseman v Potts - June 29, 2010
They have all concluded that it does apply when reviewing a title and that it was an automatic abandoning.
Go here to read the new decisions.
Views: 33865
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Kasler on
-
Den: I believe that the repetition of a mineral reservation in a deed subsequent to the original reservation has been ruled not to be a savings event. The original reservation is, of course, a title transaction and savings event.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed itself last week and decided to hear a cross appeal in the Dodd v. Croskey case. They had previously denied the cross appeal. The proposition that they will consider reads: "A restatement of a prior mineral reservation in later deeds is a "title transaction" within the meaning of 5301.56 O.R.C" See the attached files below.
- Attachments:
-
Permalink Reply by m.jones on -
If you don't pay to renew your license in 4 years the state takes it back. You have to reapply. If I don't pay your taxes you will loose your home and property. If you have unclaimed funds and it is in the newspaper and you don't see it or someone you know doesn't tell you about it being in newspaper, you loose your money period.... People that did nothing in each 20 year period per the statute to preserve their mineral rights they loose them. If the property owner is liable for the surface to pay taxes, have liability insurance etc. the person/persons that have interest in the mineral rights should have to pay something. Like the savings event recorded at the court house to pay something to be recorded every 20 years or even more often since the landowner pays taxes every year to keep their property they own.
-
Permalink Reply by Olive Sue on
-
The problem with your thinking is you use logic, unfortunately laws and courts do not always use the same .
-
Permalink Reply by ryan c on -
In the Legislative Service Assembly letter published in 1989 it clearly states "Each preceding 20 years." Folks "Each preceding 20 years" proves it to be a rolling statute. It wasn't a fixed time period.
-
Permalink Reply by marina blue on
-
Dahlgren vs Brown was reversed and remanded. Mineral rights going to the surface owners on sept 9th by the 7th district court of appeals
-
Permalink Reply by Finnbear on
-
marina blue, please post a link to this. We would all like to read up on the decision.
-
Permalink Reply by Dexter Green on
-
"If you don't pay to renew your license in 4 years the state takes it back. You have to reapply. "
This is not logical in:re to mineral rights. A driver's license is something granted by the state to those who meet specific conditions. Property ownership has no such conditions. The state is not granting you the land, you are buying/selling in a private transaction.
"If the property owner is liable for the surface to pay taxes, have liability insurance etc. the person/persons that have interest in the mineral rights should have to pay something."
Why would they have paid something? Was there any county in Ohio that ever required minerals to be taxed separately? You're essentially saying that because there was no payment of a non-existent tax someone else should automatically--and for free--be gifted an asset by an arbitrary line drawn by the state.
I buy a 200 acre farm. My plans are to develop it for residential real estate. I clear the land and put in temporary gravel roads to denote where the streets are going to be. Then I run out of funding. So it sits. If I leave it sit too long should the state now come and take it from me and hand it over to a farmer or a developer because I failed to monetize it in what they thought was the appropriate time frame?
Giving mineral rights to people for free seems to be a rather insidious practice. People who bought their land without mineral rights bought that land with some sort of discount built in. And anyone who bought land and didn't know what state the mineral rights were in failed to do their due diligence.
-
Permalink Reply by davy crockett on
-
I know 'ignorance of the law' can't be used as an excuse, but if every heir knew they had to re-reserve what was inherited because some lawmakers decided to add a 20-year renewal, this would never have happened in the first place. The writers of the law have stated on multiple occasions that is was never their intent to have automatic vesting. This law allows for a process if mineral rights can't be developed and/or if heirs can't be found or determined. This way, Uncle Sam and the State will always be able to collect 'theirs'. The law should be simple, if the process is followed and an heir responds, the heir should keep what they inherited. Plain and simple. Why does it always seem that lawyers write laws that create more work for themselves?
Top Content
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
pig dung replied to Theresa Kolk's discussion 'What's going on in your area?? any info???' in the group Tioga County, PApig dung replied to Theresa Kolk's discussion 'What's going on in your area?? any info???' in the group Tioga County, PA
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
