Ohio Supreme Court and DMA Look Back Period

I got this in my email today if anyone is interested.

Ohio Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments on DMA Look-Back Period



The Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral arguments in Eisenbarth v. Reusser today, November 17th, 2015. The appellants in Eisenbarth contend that (1) the 1989 version of the DMA (1989 DMA) had a “rolling” look-back period which operated to vest a severed mineral interest in the owner of the surface if no savings events occurred during any twenty-year period in which the 1989 DMA was in effect, and (2) that an oil and gas lease executed by the owner of the surface and the executive right to lease the severed mineral interest is not a “title transaction” of which the severed mineral interest is the subject.

Eisenbarth is the third case that will be heard today. Oral arguments will begin at 9 a.m. and can be viewed live at The Ohio Channel. Check back later for a link to the replay of the arguments.



Views: 1636

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by bessieblues on November 18, 2015 at 5:32pm
I don't know how a surface owner would have adhered to the 2006 DMA before it existed. If the 2006 DMA covers the years 1989 to 2006 you would think the Supreme Court would have required the mineral owners in Dodd v. Croskey to point to a savings event during that look back period,not just allowing the filing of an affidavit within 60 days of notice of abandonment. In other words there was 17 years that went by while the 1989 DMA was still in effect, before the 2006 DMA was even adopted and one can't ignore that as if it never happened. I guess the next certified question to the Supreme Court should be whether or not the 2006 DMA was retroactive or prospective in nature. I believe some of the lower courts in some of the cases in front of the Supreme Court have touched on this issue. Who knows? You would think that it shouldn't have taken 15 months to reach a decision in Chesapeake v. Buell,but it did.
Permalink Reply by DESJR on November 19, 2015 at 8:56am

The one thing that has not been mentioned is that there was a 3 year grace period in the 1989 DMA. So it was from 1992 back to 1969, a 23 year period.

Permalink Reply by searcherone on November 20, 2015 at 10:49am

http://bricker.com/documents/misc/PendingDMACases.pdf

This link will take you to a chart of the 12 cases regarding the Dormant Minerals Act which are pending before the Supreme Court.   Interesting that most of them say stayed or pending  the outcome of either the Eisenbarth case or the Walker case. 

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service