1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties

The 1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act has now been applied by 6 Judges in 6 different counties.

Tuscawaras - Wendt v Dickerson - Feb 21, 2013

Monroe - Eisenbarth v Reusser - June 6, 2013

Jefferson - Shannon v Householder - July 17, 2013

Columbiana - Bender v Morgan - March 20, 2013

Noble - Walker v Noon - March 20, 2013

Morgan - Wiseman v Potts - June 29, 2010

They have all concluded that it does apply when reviewing a title and that it was an automatic abandoning.

Go here to read the new decisions.

Views: 33790

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Finnbear:

Yes, very smart, accuse six judges, three trial and three appellate,  from four difference jurisdictions of being part of a grand conspiracy.
Surely, you're onto something and you will expose something of great magnitude and importance very soon. Just keeping posting. And whatever you do, don't stop.

Marc,

  One would hope this information will be factored into the broader contextual considerations informing decision-making in the Ohio Supreme Court, so that flawed policy and statute development does not result in flawed and unconstitutional legal precedent.

They won't be allowed to testify.  Their argument will be contrary to what the wrote and confessing to being an idiot doesn't get you many points with the supreme court.  it only gets you re-elected.

The dye has been cast, the Court of Appeals has spoken for the area where the bulk of Utica development is occurring, and the 2006 amendments speak for themselves. These cranks are just that: cranks.

Marc, Did you ever get a chance to research and post the "old contrary decisions" that were overturned by the 7th district that someone asked for a couple of days ago?   Sorry, I missed the post,...maybe you can post again?

i.e., those trial decisions listed by M Thomas that pre-date Sept. 23, 2013 (excluding, of course, those listed that originate outside the 7th District.)

I was correct in 89 when this law came about that it would create a mess. All the points of contention that I saw are stated in these posts here. I was most upset that property could be taken from someone and given to another when there had been no consideration given. I saw it as theft and still do. But it was the tip of the iceberg when it comes to taking property from people, the expansion of eminent domain etc. I hope that this one day is ruled unconstitutional. 

I dont see it as unconstitutional, use it or lose it... alls the mineral owner had to do was reserve the rights to there minerals, via title transaction or by a tax parcel id number is that really that hard of a thing to do???  Show your savings event every 20 years and maintain your rights. Its messed up for the fact that these people didnt care about the mineral rights until they become valuable. No one is trying to deprive anyone of there mineral rights, show your saving event and they are yours.
Until recently how many counties had separate tax parcels for the land and the minerals? I believe that's where a lot of this ambiguity lies.

All the counties at that time had the tax parcels for the minerals. People just didn't want to pay the tax for something that wasn't worth anything at the time. 

Some discouraged it as a nuisance. I had several recorders roll their eyes when I went in to record our mineral rights. Why bother, there is nothing there, and such statements. One Court employee openly ridiculed me when I bought some mineral rights at tax auction, I just smiled.

If I own something and am not using it, whether it was given to me or I bought it; nobody has the right to take it. The law was put in place to make it easier for the O&G folks to lease. That was stated in the news articles of time. It is not hard to to a detailed in depth title search and find the people that own the mineral rights. I have done it on hundreds of parcels. All of them I searched back to the first title, many of them signed by Thomas Jefferson. On each of them I found out who the owners were. It would have been much better for the government to set up escrow accounts for the royalties if the owners could not be found. I have an old Porsche in the garage that has not been on the road for a while. Does a not up to date plate and no insurance allow anyone to come and take it away. That is the logic you are using. The law was, in my opinion then and still is now; unconstitutional.

RSS

© 2022   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service