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 ryan c on February 12, 2014 at 2:16pm

The 1989 DMA came in effect to quiet old mineral reservations where people passed away and there was no one to claim the minerals... So that way all of the minerals for that property can be used. The surface owner pays for the property and pays property tax each year.  So If there is a long time period where the mineral holder does nothing to preserve their interest, I feel it should go to the land owner. I have sold many land parcels and with not one, did I retain those mineral rights. I sold the minerals with the property. I feel the minerals should be with the surface owner. If you dont pay your driver license fee every 4 years, do you keep your drivers license? No you don't, the state takes it. What is unconstitutional is if the state doesn't abide by the 1989 law that went into affect.

Permalink Reply by Magnetron12 on February 12, 2014 at 3:31pm
I agree the use it or lose it statue is too harsh considering the mobil society we live in. People are constantly moving out of state or within and trying to keep track of every asset becomes cumberson.
Permalink Reply by M Thomas on February 24, 2014 at 10:06am

Here's a new case to follow, identical to the Chesapeake v Buell case:

The village of Jewett  in Harrison County is suing North American Coal and Chesapeake arguing that the mineral rights vested according to the 1989 DMA.

http://www.timesreporter.com/article/20140222/NEWS/140229709/11022/...

Permalink Reply by bessieblues on March 15, 2014 at 9:19am
Check out yet another case in favor of the 1989 dormant act.

Reservation of Mineral Rights in 80 year old deed is abandoned by operation of law
SCOTT SIMPKINS THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2014 AT 4:34PM
On February 21, 2014, the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas entered a summary judgment, in the case captioned Leslie R. Kuzior v. Linda Fisher, et al., Monroe County Case No. 2012-382, in favor of the surface owner quieting title to oil and gas mineral rights under approximately 80 acres of real estate in Monroe County.

In this quiet title action, the defendants claimed to own a severed oil and gas interest pursuant to a mineral severance in a deed from 1927. The defendants entered into a Paid-Up Oil and Gas Lease which was recorded in February 2012 in the Monroe County Recorder’s Office. The surface owner of the 80 acres of property claimed that the defendant’s severed mineral rights was abandoned by operation of former Ohio revised code section 5301.56, which was enacted in 1989, but amended in 2006. This version of the dormant mineral act provided that if the owner of the purported severed oil and gas mineral interest failed to take any action with respect to that interest for a period of 20 years preceding the date of the acts enactment, the interest is deemed abandoned by operation of law and vested in the surface owner. Plaintiff claimed that the facts applicable to this action established that the abandonment occurred pursuant to the 1989 version of the DMA and that he was entitled to summary judgment quieting title to the mineral rights to him.

The trial court agreed and held that under the former DMA, a mineral interest is deemed abandoned and vested in the surface owner if none of the savings events occurred within a period of 20 years while the former DMA was in effect.

Should you have any questions concerning this or any real property matter, please contact David M. Cuppage at (216)621-8484.
Permalink Reply by Magnetron12 on March 17, 2014 at 6:50am

All of these cases involve single parcels. Does anyone have any ODMA information regarding mineral right owners of multiple parcels? Indiana"s DMA appears to give them more leeway and I question whether Ohio may follow their lead?

Permalink Reply by M Thomas on April 9, 2014 at 12:34pm

In Walker v Noon, the 7th District has rightly found that 1989 ODMA was in fact an automatic abandonment and that the 2006 version does not apply retroactively, but prospectively.

This is definitely an epic moment in the development of Ohio's oil and gas law, now at the appellate level.

Two noteworthy quotes:

"There is no language in the 2006 version of R.C. 5301.56 to suggest that it is to be applied retroactively. Thus it is only to apply prospectively."

and

"Noon did not have any mineral interest in the subject property after March 22, 1992, because on that date the interest automatically vested in the surface owner by operation of the statute. And once the mineral interest vested in the surface owner, it “completely and definitely” belonged to the surface owner."

Read the full decision here.

Permalink Reply by M Thomas on April 25, 2014 at 4:16pm

A new trial court case, Schucht v Bedway Land, was decided on April 21 in Harrison County.

It basically is one of the first trial court cases after the Walker v Noon appellate case. It holds that 1989 ODMA applies and that it was an automatic vesting, even though the Court ultimately decided against the surface owner because it found a savings event.

It brings Harrison county now in alignment with all other county judges who have decided on the matter. There basically is now a near unanimity between all of the trial court decisions and the Walker v Noon appellate case, which undid Dahlgren.

The direction and momentum of the body of case law is clearly moving towards holding that the 1989 ODMA created an automatic vested right which the 2006 modifications did not nullify.


You can read about it here.

Some noteworthy quotes ---

On constitutionality

"Based upon Texaco, this Court finds the 1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act to be constitutional."


On the relationship between the 1989 and the 2006 act:

"This Court finds that the 1989 and the 2006 versions of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act are both applicable to the Case at bar, however; should the mineral interest vest herein pursuant to the 1989 Act, any review under the 2006 version of the Act would become moot. See Walker v. Noon, 1499, 7th Dist. Court of Appeals, April 3, 2014."

Permalink Reply by Randy Lollini on April 26, 2014 at 1:20am

My minerals where reserved in 1963. I had an attorney file for abandoned rights. They filed a preservation but listed no savings event. My attorney recorded our paper work at the court house and said I am basically in limbo until we have a precedent decided. He also said it would cost to much to do a quiet title for the five acres involved. So far it seems that the 1989 act may help me. My question is that even though the 1989 act could be an automatic transfer to the surface owner I did not buy the property until 2007. Could the fact I bought in 2007 make the 2006 act effect me or where the minerals passed on to me through all the sales of the property that led up to me in 2007. I see both sides here and I feel for everyone affected. In my case the five acres could mean a lot to my family and the people that filed for preservation own thousands of acres. Thanks for any advice. 

Permalink Reply by M Thomas on May 2, 2014 at 9:51am

There is another trial court case affirming that the 1989 ODMA was an automatic abandonment. The issue for this one revolves around whether a recorded will is a savings event or not and whether the 20-year-look-back period is fixed or rolling.

Albanese v Batman

This is the most recent tally of trial and appellate cases holding that the 1989 ODMA was an automatic abandonment and an automatic unquestionable vesting. Basically all counties with ODMA cases are represented unanimously except Carrol County, which had the Dahlgren case. But the Dahlgren case was undone by Walker v Noon in the 7th District.

Complete list to date:


1. Morgan - Wiseman v Potts - June 29, 2010

2. Tuscawaras - Wendt v Dickerson - Feb 21, 2013

3. Columbiana - Bender v Morgan - March 20, 2013

4. Noble - Walker v Noon - March 20, 2013

5. Monroe - Marty v Dennis - April 11, 2013

6. Monroe - Eisenbarth v Reusser - June 6, 2013

7. Jefferson - Shannon v Householder - July 17, 2013

8. Belmont - Tribett v Shepherd - July 22, 2013

9. Jefferson - Kross v Ruff - Sept 13, 2013

10. Belmont - Taylor v Crosby - Sept 16, 2013

11. Belmont - Hendershot v Korner - Oct 28, 2013

12. Monroe - Blackstone v Moore - Jan 22, 2014

13. Monroe - Kuzior v Fisher - February 21, 2014

14. 7th District Court of Appeals - Walker v Noon - April 3, 2014

15. Harrison - Schucht v Bedway Land - April 21, 2014

16. Belmont - Albanese v Batman - April 28, 2014

Permalink Reply by M Thomas on June 4, 2014 at 7:00am

There is now another appellate case finding in favor of the automatic vesting of the 1989 DMA and thus the plain language of the statute -Swartz v Householder.

The case hails from Jefferson County and the new appellate decision from the 7th district.

Read here.

It is another monumental case that really develops the real impact of the 1989 DMA.

Two noteworthy quotes:

1. Clarifies the Dodd decision and why it only discussed the 2006th DMA.

First, appellants note that our Dodd case did not discuss the 1989 DMA. However, the parties in that case did not present arguments to this court under the 1989 DMA... They only presented arguments concerning the 2006 DMA. If parties do not invoke a statute, we proceed under the impression that the parties agreed that said statute was not dispositive, i.e. if parties agree that there was no abandonment under the 1989 DMA, then they proceed under only the 2006 DMA.

2. Walks through the relationship between the two DMA's and at what point the automatic vesting ended but did not retroactively "unvest".


The current DMA thus eliminated the automatic vesting after June 30,2006, but did not erase previously vested interests (merely because a suit had not yet been filed to formalize the reverter).

Permalink Reply by Gwen S on June 30, 2014 at 4:03pm

Hello,

I just finished my first year of law school and began an internship this summer in which I have written and edited some title opinions in Carroll County. The partners at the firm that I am doing work for have asked me to analyze Ohio DMA case law, and I have run into a conundrum. How would you distinguish the 16 cases above in which the courts held that the 89 version calls for an automatic vesting versus the holding in Hines, in which the court held that the 06 version applied, as the 89 version was contrary to the purpose of the MTA? Would you just utilize the Householder holding?

Additionally, In Croskey, 2 days after receiving notice, he filed an affidavit stating that he was an heir, pursuant to 5301.56. I thought that the affidavit had to show a savings event that had occurred within the preceding 20 years. If one files an affidavit without listing a savings event, is the affidavit itself classified as a savings event, or is it considered as a "claim to preserve a mineral interest"? 

Overall, would you say that at least until the Ohio Supreme Court sheds light on the DMA, that it is safe to say that the 89 version is controlling up through 2006?

I'm sorry if my questions do not make sense, and feel free to ask me to clarify. Just try to keep in mind that I just finished my first year of law school in Texas, and I have only been studying Ohio oil and gas law for a month.

Permalink Reply by evan on June 30, 2014 at 9:42pm
In my opinion I think your right , the 89 law is kind of in place until the 2006 law took place. Touchy subject for sure

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service