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: 33858

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by davy crockett on February 6, 2014 at 10:13am

Attorney is no longer living.

 

The State of Ohio AND the federal government collects taxes off of many entities involved in the development of the acreage; from the bonus money given to the mineral owner to an including off of the upstream, midstream and downstream companies involved in production from the shale.

Permalink Reply by buc booster on February 5, 2014 at 9:26pm

Davy,

  You are correct, as was Marcus last week. Capricious and arbitrary, but still a taking. Tax parcel, taxes paid, clear and exact language for 50 years through 5 surface owners, a probated will granting the rights in 1981, and still we can not lease these rights!  It simply means nothing matters but some arbitrary law clerks action- not chain of title, not wills, nothing but that statute. Finnbear, you are simply wrong- none of this mattered. Pretty sad in America that a will means nothing, and a chain of title means nothing. I hope that the Ohio Supreme Court decides Marketable Title matters, and the right of property cannot be taken on a whim. Clearly, big money is trumping our Constitution, and apparently no one cares, and the lawyers get their money!

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on February 6, 2014 at 9:05am

At what exact point in history did the mineral interest vest back with the surface owners? IIRC, from what you told me before and based on the '89 DMA, they were gone before you inherited them but you didn't find that out until later. What is the exact timeline of this reservation you lost? When were they reserved away from the surface?  

Permalink Reply by davy crockett on February 6, 2014 at 11:24am

1989 Dormant Mineral Act

(i) The mineral interest has been the subject of a title transaction that has been filed or recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the lands are located;

 

If a will is probated in court, does the above savings event require that the 'title transaction' is recorded in the office of the county recorder?  The "OR" is the part of the DMA that I don't understand.  Does the title transaction have to be "filed" only OR does it have to be "filed or recorded in the office of the county recorder"?  Because if the "title transaction" only has to be "filed", then a "will" that is probated IS FILED IN THE COURTHOUSE.

Permalink Reply by buc booster on February 6, 2014 at 1:56pm

Davy,

  I have been led to believe a will that is not recorded, but merely probated, has been found to fail the test on two grounds. It is not the subject of the transaction- which it was, since that was all that was inherited, since the surface had been sold; and that it had to be recorded.

Permalink Reply by searcherone on February 4, 2014 at 7:42pm

Monroe County Beacon dated Thursday Feb 6 2014 page 2.

Please be advised that the Monroe County Appeal No. 13 MO 10 Eisenbarth et al. v, Reusser, et al, has been set for hearing before the Seventh District Court of Appeals (names the four judges) on Wednesday, February 5, 2014, at the Columbiana County Juvenile Court, 260 W. Lincoln Way in Lisbon, Ohio.

 

Permalink Reply by Olive Sue on February 4, 2014 at 10:21pm

Wondering is Eisenbarth the landowner or Reusser? 

Permalink Reply by M Thomas on February 5, 2014 at 1:51pm

Here are two new cases upholding the 1989 DMA as a self-executing, automatic abandonment and vesting:

Blackstone v Moore - Monroe - Jan 22, 2014

"This Court finds it necessary to briefly discuss and reconcile any confusion or misunderstanding concerning the current DMA and the Former DMA and the effect of the Seventh District's holding in Dodd. First, there is a difference between a statute that is self-executing and one that is not. Under the Former DMA , rights to a Severed Mineral Interest become "vested in the owner of the surface" of the property by operation of law upon the lapse of 20 years without the occurrence of a savings event identified in division (8)(1 )(c)."

"Thus, pursuant to the Former DMA , Summary Judgment is hereby granted in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on Plaintiffs' First Claim in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint."

Read http://www.ohiodormantmineralact.com/blackstone-v-moore/


Kross v Ruff - Jefferson - Sept 13, 2013

This is a shorter decision but still refers to 1989 DMA:

"Under the Dormant Mineral Act of 1989 and 2006 a Mineral Interest is deemed abandoned and vests in the ovmer of the surface unless one of six saving conditions have occurred."

Read http://www.ohiodormantmineralact.com/kross-v-ruff/

It's now roughly 7 counties and 12 decisions that have upheld the plain language of the 1989 ODMA:


Complete list to date:


Morgan - Wiseman v Potts - June 29, 2010

Tuscawaras - Wendt v Dickerson - Feb 21, 2013

Columbiana - Bender v Morgan - March 20, 2013

Noble - Walker v Noon - March 20, 2013

Monroe - Marty v Dennis - April 11, 2013

Monroe - Eisenbarth v Reusser - June 6, 2013

Jefferson - Shannon v Householder - July 17, 2013

Belmont - Tribett v Shepherd - July 22, 2013

Jefferson - Kross v Ruff - Sept 13, 2013

Belmont - Taylor v Crosby - Sept 16, 2013

Belmont - Hendershot v Korner - Oct 28, 2013

Monroe - Blackstone v Moore - Jan 22, 2014

At this time, there is a near unanimity (despite a few stray cases Harrison and Carroll) in the trial Judges holding that the 1989 DMA was in fact an automatic abandonment/vesting in the surface owner as a matter of law, assuming there is no saving event.

Permalink Reply by DCG on February 5, 2014 at 4:31pm

Thank you M. Thomas for the update on the 1989 DMA!!  Hopefully someone will get the word to Harrison County Courthouse!

Permalink Reply by Marc on February 5, 2014 at 5:00pm

Dates are important when you're applying an appellate decision: The Court of Appeals decided Dodd v. Croskey on Sept. 23, 2013.

After that date, judges in Monroe, Harrison, and Carroll all enforced the 2006 procedural amendments as written. 

Permalink Reply by bessieblues on February 6, 2014 at 9:11am

Marc, the Monroe county court upheld the 1989 DMA in the most recent case (Blackstone v. Moore) and clarifies the confusion it created in referencing the Dodd case in it's previous decision  (Gentile v. Ackerman). The Monroe county court acknowledges the fact that in Dodd the 1989 DMA was never argued, and hence the 7th district only reviewed and ruled on what was argued, the 2006 DMA. P.S. Did you get a chance to research and post the "old contrary decisions" that were overturned by the 7th district? Thanks. 

Permalink Reply by Magnetron12 on February 6, 2014 at 2:02pm

Well in my opinion for what it's worth the act was changed in 2006 and therefore any cases decided after that should be subject to those changes regardless of what was decided in 1989.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service