Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by deutchen on November 8, 2015 at 12:06pm

I find it encouraging from a mineral owners standpoint that they interpreted a title transaction so liberally. I think this lends hope that they may consider a reference to previously separated mineral rights by volume & page in a deed as a title transaction & thus a saving event. Walker v Nau will ultimately decide everything.

  I think it's also encouraging that the chief justice definitely took the side of Nau, the mineral owner, during oral arguments for Walker v Nau. Hopefully it won't be too much longer for a decision to be reached.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dee on November 8, 2015 at 12:21pm

THE QUESTIONS:

A. The Certified Questions
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned certifies the following
questions of state law to the Supreme Court of Ohio pursuant to Rule 9.01 of the
Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio:
1) Is the recorded lease of a severed subsurface mineral estate a title transaction under the ODMA, Ohio Revised Code § 5301.56(5)(3)(a)?
AND
2) Is the expiration of a recorded lease and the reversion of the rights granted under that lease a title transaction that restarts the twenty-year forfeiture clock under the ODMA at the time of the reversion?

THE ANSWERS:

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., et al. Case No. 2014-0067 v. JUDGMENT ENTRY Kenneth Buell et al. ~ This cause, here on the certification of a state law question from the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, was considered in the manner prescribed by law. Upon review pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R, 9.08, the court answers the first certified state-law question in the affirmative and the second certified state—law question in the negative, consistent with the opinion rendered herein.
(U.S. Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division; No. 2:12-CV-916)

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 15
• 16
• 17
• Next ›
• Page