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: 33865

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by bessieblues on February 6, 2014 at 9:04am

It would be impossible to repeal the effects of the 1989 DMA, a law that remained in effect for 17 years. The amended 2006 DMA does not disturb vested rights that may have been acquired under the 1989 DMA.

Permalink Reply by ohioshale on February 6, 2014 at 10:17am

@Manetron12 - That's likely the ultimate outcome from the higher courts.  Dodd v Croskey implies as much.  What the 1989 proponents tend to ignore is the fact that a surface owner who has done nothing under the prior version does not have record marketable title.  And, unless the comply with the 2006 act, they never will.

Permalink Reply by Marc on February 6, 2014 at 10:57am

I spoke with an attorney who attended a recent oil and gas law seminar hosted by the Ohio Bar. The main presenter was the principle drafter of the '89 Act. The presenter said that the Act was never intended to be self-executing - that it was never even a point of consideration among the drafters that it could be interpreted as such. This attorney said that anyone who paid for the seminar online (as opposed to in person, as she did) likely still has access to the video of the presentation. It would be interesting to have the link posted, if anyone has access to it, or knows anyone who does. Although if some people are willing to ignore a three judge panel from the Court of Appeals - Dodd was decided three to zero - even the word of the drafters themselves may not be enough to bring them around.

Permalink Reply by DCG on February 7, 2014 at 4:27am

As stated NUMEROUS times before.......the 1989 DMA was NOT pleaded in the Dodd/Croskey case. 

Permalink Reply by Marc on February 7, 2014 at 6:51am

As stated above, the principle drafter of the '89 version told a seminar hosted by the Ohio Bar that self-execution was nowhere on their radar. Go argue it out with him, and with the three judge panel from Youngstown which decided not to raise what would have been a dispositive issue if, you know, they had actually thought that the '89 Act was dispositive (and clearly they didn't). Judges from three different counties have all interpreted Dodd to mean that. But what can you expect from a Judge? It's not like they know anything about the law...

Who knows, maybe the three judges from Youngstown were in attendance at the aforementioned Ohio bar seminar...or maybe they just know that you can't read a single provision of a statute in isolation from the rest of the statute, or read the DMA in a way that would make title examiners' jobs harder (making their jobs easier is the express purpose of 5301.56).

Permalink Reply by Eric on February 7, 2014 at 4:34am

if it wasn't supposed to be self executing then why did they draft it in self executing form?  Sounds like the drafter didn't know what he was doing.  maybe we can call this the Mineralcare act?

Permalink Reply by bessieblues on February 7, 2014 at 4:39am

AAAAAAAmen!!!!!!

Permalink Reply by DCG on February 7, 2014 at 4:40am

Amen!!

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on February 7, 2014 at 5:12am

Exactly! Even someone with little legal experience can understand the self executing part if they possess basic reading comprehension (I tested this on my now 16 year old a couple years ago when this issue first came to light).

Methinks someone has an agenda.

Permalink Reply by Olive Sue on February 7, 2014 at 5:15am

I suspect you have hit it right on!

Permalink Reply by buc booster on February 7, 2014 at 5:30am

Finnbear,

  Assume you are referring to me, and you are 100% correct, I do have an agenda. I want to assure that when I leave property rights to loved ones, that will is honored by the state, regardless of how much money the gas and coal companies spend to create legal hoops to jump through, so they can grab them. I believe without these safeguards the chain of title protection of personal property rights, upon which America is based, mean nothing. If we don't have a regulated capitalism,money will always win!

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on February 7, 2014 at 6:51am

Nope - not you. Follow up this thread to and you'll figure it out.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service