Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by ryan c on September 19, 2014 at 9:57am

Bessieblues, correction to the "Each" on the original ODMA , however the Ohio Legislative Service Commission Stated in 1989 Each Preceding 20 years, the report was published December, 1988 ,p38.  I will post a pdf copy on here shortly

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ryan c on September 19, 2014 at 11:07am

Here is the PDF File of p.38 of the legislative service commission report

Attachments:

• scan.pdf, 1 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bessieblues on September 19, 2014 at 2:39pm

This looks like the original draft? It puts me in mind of the oral arguments during the Chesapeake v. Buell case at the Ohio Supreme Court, discussing whether a lease constitutes a savings event under the DMA. Apparently a lease was mentioned specifically in the original draft of the DMA , but was removed before the DMA was adopted. Very interesting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marc on September 30, 2014 at 7:06am

if 'each' was in an original draft and then removed in favor of 'the' that would tend to support a one-time abandonment window.

The Seventh District has a reasonable interpretation for why the statute references successive filings.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marc on September 30, 2014 at 7:11am

In the final analysis, Ohio law is clear on one point, even if the original DMA was altogether ambiguous to the lay-man: forfeiture is an extreme outcome that will only be enforced if it's clear that was actually the legislature's intent. Since the legislature was surely aware of this time-honored canon of interpretation, why didn't they use the clear language available from the Indiana Lapse statute or the proposed Uniform Dormant Mineral Act? The verbal road-map to reunite mineral and surface by operation of law was there to be followed, and the General Assembly consciously decided to go in another direction. Presumably this is because it was not their intent to create a self-operating statute -- otherwise why re-invent the wheel? The 2006 DMA seems like clear remedial legislation that doesn't need to have retroactive effect to solve the confusion -- it simply 'shores up' the legislative language to make the inert nature of the statute abundantly clear to the average Joe. Which is how it should have been in the first place, out of basic fairness to property owners, prospective buyers, and title examiners.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Den on September 19, 2014 at 5:11am

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/7/2014/2014-ohio-4001.pdf

Another ruling for automatic abandonment under 1989, even though filed after the 2006.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by m.jones on September 19, 2014 at 4:36pm

Bessie What do you mean interesting? The Service Commission stated each preceding 20 years I also have a copy of that page  myself that came from the Supreme Court Law Library in Columbus, OH. The appellate judges are to read every work to have meaning, so you don't dismiss successive filings to have no meaning. To me the secondary evidence  is the testimony of the Service Commission stating each 20 year period. It seems to be biased to not interpret each word with meaning. Ryan C. I am glad you posted the pg. 38 , I was going to post it myself.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by m.jones on September 19, 2014 at 4:38pm

I mean word to have meaning its late.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bessieblues on September 20, 2014 at 12:53am

Very interesting in that this may help demonstrate the intent of section D(1) of the 1989 DMA. Check my response to Ryan C yesterday.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dott on September 25, 2014 at 8:26am

Here is another 7th District Decision:

OH: Another DMA Decision from the Seventh District

POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 BY VORYS

• Email This
• Print

On September 22, the Seventh District Court of Appeals issued a new decision concerning the 1989 version of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (1989 DMA). InFarnsworth v. Burkhart, the court reaffirmed its prior decisions in Dodd v. Croskey, Walker v. Noon and Eisenbarth v. Reusser and held:

1.      The 1989 DMA is self-executing;

 

2.      The 1989 DMA creates a fixed, rather than a rolling, look-back period; and

 

3.      A reference to a prior mineral severance in a surface conveyance is not a title transaction savings event.

 

The court declined to consider the issue of the constitutionality of the 1989 DMA as it was not addressed by the parties in the lower court. Read the decision here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bessieblues on September 25, 2014 at 2:27pm

Sounds like Judge Degenaro may have some "skin " in the game?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by m.jones on September 28, 2014 at 3:15pm

There were 6 to 8 cases that a local common pleas court found that it is a rolling statute.

He made his judgment because the statute allowed for successive filing of claims and he found this to be consistent with the comments set forth in the Ohio Legislative Service report relating to the 1989 DMA.  Under the act an interest could be preserved indefinitely from deemed abandonment by the occurrence of any of the four listed categories of exceptional circumstances within each preceding 20 year period (emphasis added).  I would like to know how the appellate judges can use static when 5 Senators were on the commission report stating each preceding year period! If you look back on these replies Ryan C pdf the Ohio Legislative Commission Service Report. They seemed to disregard the clear evidence that is a rolling statute, but come up with a lame excuse that successive filings could have been a second preservation claim under the Ohio Marketable Title Act.  This way of thinking is absurd.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• …
• 17
• Next ›
• Page