Ohio Supreme Court Hands Down Slip Decision In Favor of 700 Landowners

SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-178

THE STATE EX REL. CLAUGUS FAMILY FARM, L.P. v. SEVENTH DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

HUSTACK ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. BECK ENERGY CORPORATION, APPELLEE.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it

may be cited as State ex rel. Claugus Family Farm, L.P. v. Seventh Dist. Court

of Appeals, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-178.]

Oil and gas leases—Class certification—Validity of leases—Covenant to reasonably develop the land—Delay rentals do not extend beyond the fixed term of a lease.

(Nos. 2014-0423 and 2014-1933—Submitted December 15, 2015—Decided

January 21, 2016.)

IN MANDAMUS and PROHIBITION.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Monroe County, Nos. 12 MO 6, 13 MO 2,

13 MO 3, and 13 MO 11, 2014-Ohio-4255.

_____________________

Views: 5860

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Billy Bob Meeker on January 27, 2016 at 4:34am

Do you have a link to this decision?

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on January 27, 2016 at 4:46am

http://go.skimresources.com/?id=11877X696813&site=gomarcellussh...

Got the above link to a synopsis from the first  searcherone reply on page 1 of the replies (2nd reply on page 1).

Don't know if that's exactly what you're looking for but thinking that sums it up and is basically what everyone is using as the best reference here.  

Permalink Reply by Olive Sue on January 28, 2016 at 5:10am

Ok, here we go on another scenario.  Read and reread the decision.  Bottom line says Beck tolling order DENIED.  Go back and read Becks last request on tolling and it does say tolling order expired????? which might indicate the first one expired and the Supreme Court denied any extension when the last line of the decision says "Beck request for tolling denied".  Now the rest of the story (maybe) if your lease expired during the first tolling order (?) and those months of tolling are now past, are you free and clear?

Any attorneys out there, we have lots of arm chair ones (and maybe I've been one), perhaps we need a real definitive answer.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on January 28, 2016 at 6:29am

Not any kind of attorney armchair or otherwise - only trying to keep my head straight on things such by applying my own common sense / intuition - and it's tough too - especially reading all of these varying opinions.

MHO / it seems to me that the Supreme Court basically upended / over-turned what the lower court decided,

If the lower court denied Beck's requested 'Tolling Order' and the Supreme Court granted it - I'd guess that the Supreme Court's decision voided the lower court's denial.

JMHO as a layman as I read all of this.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on January 28, 2016 at 10:23am
Had it backwards in my earlier reply (directly above) I guess.

The Supreme Court denied the Lower Court's Tolling Order as I now read / interpret.

Pardon me kindly.
Permalink Reply by Barry D on January 28, 2016 at 2:10pm

Joseph,

No,

The Supreme Court denied a request for a new tolling order.

I believe the original tolling order expired with the decision by the Supreme Court.

This is just an arm chair attorney opinion.

My apologies to those who don't appreciate the opinions of arm chair attorneys. 1st amendment, free speech and all that.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on January 28, 2016 at 3:20pm
Oh well, so much for trying to figure that part of it out (lol - as I now know that I can't).

Only importance attached to any denied / expired 'Tolling' that I can see would be how it affects the 'Delay Rental' amounts due the lessors involved.

Good luck to all.
Permalink Reply by searcherone on January 28, 2016 at 7:19am

Here is link to the 17 pages of the decision.   Perhaps some of you clicked the link on the summary page and got to it, but if not here it is.

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2016/2016-Ohio-178.pdf

Permalink Reply by Olive Sue on January 28, 2016 at 8:12am

This is what I have read so many times.....and this is what others are reading #41 lines and below again "Finally Beck has filed a motion..........." and motion is denied.

Others continue to interpret  this differently and as an advantage??????

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on January 28, 2016 at 9:31am

It appears to me that the 'Beck motion' was for the Tolling Order (as I read) which (as I also read) was denied.

That seems to me to mean Beck would have to pay the 'Delay Rental' for the 'denied Tolling period' I guess.

Noting there is a Justice Pfeifer who dissented on the side of Claugus.

What's that mean to the decision ?

Is that another Class Action waiting to happen I wonder ?

Complicated is putting it mildly.

Enough to give a person a migraine.

Permalink Reply by Barry D on January 28, 2016 at 2:13pm

Joseph,

The dissent means nothing to this case.

However, it may be cited in future court cases as support for an opinion or an argument.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on January 28, 2016 at 3:20pm
Thanks Barry D.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service