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 bessieblues on September 29, 2014 at 1:45pm
M Jones, I agree.
Permalink Reply by ohioshale on September 29, 2014 at 4:15pm

Read the statute.  It was a static twenty year period.  This isn't the first time that the legislature "may" have intended one thing, but clearly wrote something else in the language of the statute.  

Look at it this way, the surface owner never paid for the minerals anyway, so really they aren't losing or giving up anything.  And why should they be entitled to something that they knew they weren't buying in the first place?

Permalink Reply by ryan c on September 29, 2014 at 7:51pm

Your opinion is obviously quite BIAS ohioshale. You should get your facts right for one. Nowhere in the statute does it mention it was a static 20 year period. The 1989 and 2006 ODMA are merely the SAME! The only difference is the 2006 requires notice. The 2006 is a 20 year rolling statute.  The 20 year clock starts ticking from the moment of the last savings event. When the 20 year clock expires, surface owner grants notice.  If no answer then they abandon their rights. Go back to the 1989 ODMA there is no difference besides it didn't require notice.

As far as saying the surface owner didn't pay for the rights, that is bias as well.  The people that inherited the rights didn't pay for them either! Those people inherited it from someone who passed away, they sold the property for money and then were greedy by holding on to the minerals.  If anyone deserves the mineral rights, it is the people who payed for the property, the taxes, and the up keep of the land.

Permalink Reply by Dexter Green on September 29, 2014 at 7:56pm

Nothing like a little class warfare to spice things up.

Permalink Reply by deutchen on September 29, 2014 at 8:03pm

Everyone who reads this discussion is biased one way or the other otherwise they wouldn't bother reading it.

Permalink Reply by ryan c on September 29, 2014 at 9:25pm

You are absolutely right on that. I appreciate everyones comments, but people should make sure there facts are right before they comment

Permalink Reply by ryan c on September 29, 2014 at 8:17pm

If anything Ohioshale, the statute points to a rolling statute, In 1988 right before the 1989 ODMA was enacted the Legislative Service Commission  published a report on the Senate Bill. In that report which I am going to attach states "Within Each Preceding 20 years."  What does each mean? Each means more then 1, Plural!!

Permalink Reply by Dott on September 29, 2014 at 8:26pm

R

Permalink Reply by Dott on September 29, 2014 at 9:55pm

Ryan,

Just so you know, you scanned a sales contract to purchase a Harley not what you intended to scan.

Permalink Reply by bessieblues on September 29, 2014 at 10:05pm
Ryan ,check that attachment.
Permalink Reply by ohioshale on September 29, 2014 at 10:15pm

Read the statute before you comment.

Permalink Reply by searcherone on September 29, 2014 at 11:07pm

ryan, just delete your comment and start over.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service