Walker v Nau: supreme court case decided in favor of mineral rights owners!!!
Check out the Ohio Supreme Court website to read the decisions. Both Walker v Nau & Corban v Chesapeake have been decided in favor of the mineral rights owners. There is no automatic vesting. Hurray!!!
Views: 6369
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on
-
CHK owned the 'severed',minerals in another case
-
Permalink Reply by deutchen on
-
Yes, Corban v Chesapeake. That was the case that decided all the others.
-
Permalink Reply by Loretta o'Leary on
-
Laura, that is my oil and gas attorneys interpretation as well! Our surface owner bought the surface rights in 2009. On the sales contract in black and white it states 'surface rights only' 'mineral rights severed' AND they still sued us!!!!!! Dirty dogs HA!
-
Permalink Reply by Laura on
-
Exactly what happened to my family. In black and white minerals reserved! and sued us
-
-
I think there are a lot of us in this same boat. People are greedy and do not care who they trying to steal from. They are entitled self centered folks.
-
Permalink Reply by matthew rouse on
-
OR maybe there are people out there that bought their land long ago and told the lawyer handling the sale that they wanted all surface and mineral rights and were assured they had them.Now 25 years later some supposed mineral owner referencing a claim 1910 comes along and says hey I own those ...now you gotta prove I don't own them.
Greed is not exclusive to land owners..
-
-
In my case, the surface buyers knew exactly what they were buying. The contract, 2009, states rather boldly that the mineral rights were NOT included in the sale. Yet, they still sued us. My family has owned the mineral rights since the 1950's. What they tried to do to us is simply wrong. Period.
I am sure that there are many scenarios, I am just stating my situation. If a realtor did not do their due diligence when they represented the land to the buyer, I say it's on the realtor or the title company who did a very poor job researching the titles.
-
Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on
-
I think we agree matthew rouse.
It's multi-dimensional.
To me, it's no good changing a law that people referenced when making a purchase.
It's no good writing into law a new condition that invalidates a previous valid purchase.
Like a person buying a car for instance and then a new law is written that makes it a condition to kiss the Pope's ring beforehand; and if you didn't kiss the Pope's ring beforehand the seller repossesses the car.
It just don't figure to be right.
-
Permalink Reply by DESJR on
-
if one had all ready used the 2006 DMA to reclaim the mineral interest, this ruling will have no affect on the claim will it?
-
-
Yea, indeed. What does no automatic vesting mean. Bonnie
-
-
My understanding is this. If a claim was made after the 2006 amendment to marry the minerals back to the surface, the 1989 act does not apply. That is assuming the surface owners did due diligence in publicly trying to find the rightful owners and the rightful mineral owners responded to the filing, saying 'yes, we are still here and we want our mineral rights'
-
-
Thank you Loretta for the explanation. But as i just posted a minute ago, they did publicly put a notice in the Ohio paper ( only one cousin lives in Ohio out of nine) and there was no way anyone could respond back to the papers delivered to our door before the deadline date. Shouldn't that fact be to our advantage in court? Bonnie
Top Content
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
pig dung replied to Theresa Kolk's discussion 'What's going on in your area?? any info???' in the group Tioga County, PApig dung replied to Theresa Kolk's discussion 'What's going on in your area?? any info???' in the group Tioga County, PA
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
