Finally a Decision

Looks like a Victory for Mineral Holders:

CONCLUSION {¶ 37} We hold that a mineral-interest holder’s claim to preserve filed pursuant to R.C. 5301.56(H)(1)(a) is sufficient to preclude the mineral interests from being deemed abandoned if filed within 60 days after notice of the surface owner’s intent to declare those interests abandoned. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals on this issue alone, and the appellants are precluded from declaring the mineral interests abandoned under the Dormant Mineral Act. Judgment affirmed. 

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2015/2015-Ohio-2362...

Views: 2964

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Puzzled on June 18, 2015 at 5:11am

Ok.......I have an interest in this decision since My family and I have been going through a process to have our title cleared as far as mineral rights go.

after the ad ran in the local paper 2 different entities responded saying they had a claim on the portion of minerals in question.

what proofs are they required to produce if any.......can anyone say at any time they have a claim to minerals and stop the abandonment process even if they don't have proof up front?

Permalink Reply by Puzzled on June 18, 2015 at 5:33am

nvm....I read the statute my self this opinion is based on...

Permalink Reply by Pat Kresty on June 18, 2015 at 9:12am

When the ad was published it named those people who may have an interest. These two entities were most likely named in the ad or are heirs.  According to the decision if they file an affidavit to preserve within the 60 day time frame you can not take their rights away.

Permalink Reply by Ann Koch on June 18, 2015 at 5:15am
Judgement Affirmed!!!
;~}
Permalink Reply by Joe Bezel on June 18, 2015 at 5:41am

It's about time.  I hope this adds some clarity to the issue.

Permalink Reply by DESJR on June 18, 2015 at 9:22am

from what I read, this does not address the 1989 DMA act issues prior to  the 2006 DMA coming into exixtence?

Permalink Reply by deutchen on June 18, 2015 at 3:02pm

I wish this was the final victory for mineral rights holders but I'm afraid it's not. On page 8 of the decision it says : "The original 1989 version of the Dormant Mineral Act did not include a notice procedure. 142 Ohio Laws, Part I, 981, 985-987. This absence has resulted in litigation questioning whether mineral rights automatically vested after 20 years without action by the surface owner if no saving event occurred, which is an issue currently before this court, including in the following cases: Walker v. Shondrick-Nau, case No. 2014-0803; Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., case."

Corban v Chesapeake has already had oral arguments and is awaiting a decision. Walker v Nau is scheduled for oral arguments next Tuesday. You can get on the Ohio Supreme courts web site & watch the oral arguments after they have them.

I watched Corban v Chesapeake & thought that unfortunately the mineral owners "Chesapeake's" argument was pretty lame. I hope the mineral owners argument is better in Walker v Nau.

   These 2 cases will determine whether the 1989 version of the dormant minerals act rules & mineral rights automatically revert back to the surface owner after 20 years of inactivity in which case Dodd v Croskey is irrelevant or if the 2006 version must be applied in which case Dodd v Croskey could be very important.

Permalink Reply by Barb Smith on June 18, 2015 at 12:55pm
Read the bottom of page 9 closely
Permalink Reply by Olive Sue on June 19, 2015 at 7:44am

Ok, have read and reread.  Is this decision not addressing whether '89 0r '06 is the correct one or only based on the case because it did not mention a disagreement between the two laws?  This decision is about as clear as my question.  At some point I was told in abandonment both laws should be cited.  Clear as mud!!!

Permalink Reply by Barb Smith on June 19, 2015 at 8:28am

The 1989 case arguments will be at the Supreme Court this coming Tuesday, that may shed a little light Sue. I think yesterdays decision maybe the way the 1989 case could go. No automatic vesting to the surface owner

Permalink Reply by deutchen on June 23, 2015 at 10:36am

Check out the new video of the Walker v Nau oral arguments at the Ohio Supreme Court web site by clicking on "video archive".

Permalink Reply by Magnetron12 on July 1, 2015 at 5:36am

It appears that they are leaning heavily towards applying ODMA 2006 on any cases brought after its publication and applying ODMA 1989 on any quiet title actions by the surface owners before the publication of ODMA 2006. 

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service