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: 33858

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The 7th District just overruled Dahlgren v Brown.

http://www.ohiodormantmineralact.com/dahlgren-v-brown-7th-district/

All three judges concurred in the decision.

It ends the case law that would suggest that 1989 DMA is not automatic.

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 circumstances. M. Thomas is correct in that the 7th district has ended case law that argued the 1989 DMA is not automatic. ( Dahlgren v. Brown )

In all likelihood, the Judge's concurrence will become the law.  

In Eisenbarth v Reusser one judge did not concur with the other appellate court judges and offered her opinion against automatic vesting. Her name is Mary DeGenaro. She was not one of the judges in the appeal of Dahlgren v Brown or walker v noon. I assume she would have dissented then also. I wonder why an appellate judge would be be involved in one appealed case but not on others?

What was her reasoning against automatic vesting? The 1989 law, as written, would seem to indicate automatic vesting.

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.

This Law Firm explains the rulings.

Permitting/Regulating Issues

09/12/2014

- See more at: http://oilandgas.jacksonkelly.com/permittingregulating-issues/#stha...

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 split up by a third party into acre or small tracts and sold as investments to others. A land owner sold his mineral rights (1/8 of Production) in lets say 80 acres to a company who sold 80  one acres of minerals to various parties.   ( 1/ 80th of 1/8 royalty). These parties passed the 1 acre on to  their 5 heirs.  so now 400 people have to sign one lease to drill a shallow well.  You cannot find them so DMA were  passed.   So  be wary of the person who tries to buy your mineral rights.  Be sure to time limit them in the  mineral deed itself with a reversion to the surface owner of record on a specific date..

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. "EACH PRECEDING 20 YEARS."  It is pretty clear it is a rolling statute. I wish everyone who agrees with me would stand up and put a fight against these 2 appellate judges decisions that clearly just don't understand.

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 WINDOW. So how can they say the 1989 isn't? 

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 would suggest a rolling statute. As far as the constitutionality of the 1989 DMA goes, I believe the 3 year grace period addressed that issue.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service