Court Rules 1989 Version of Dormant Mineral Act Vested Mineral Rights in Surface Owner

Just saw this new case concerning the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act

http://www.ohiodormantmineralact.com/

Wendt v Dickerson

It seems like any mineral reservation made  before 1986, that did not have a saving event, is automatically abandoned. The minerals would then be reunited with the surface.

Views: 9914

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mud Flaps on March 5, 2013 at 6:22pm

yes

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on March 6, 2013 at 4:03am

If there is production, the 1970 lease is probably still in force. Is the lessor on that old lease possibly an heir/successor to the 1900 reservation? If not, how did that lease legally get signed/filed and how is it still in force 43 years later?

The production and 1970 lease would appear to exclude use of ODMA under ORC 5301.56 (B)(3)(b).

Permalink Reply by Nette H. on March 4, 2013 at 8:11pm

8pointer,  I have a similar scenario. 1900 lease went after coal. A 1971 lease is for oil and has very simple, generic language in the lease that states "in and under said described land'. These old leases did not care about shallow or deep...  the fact that we have shallow (producing) HBP wells locks us (the lease holder/heirs) to the lease terms for the Utica. As is also the case for our neighbors... the new surface owners have no claim to any mineral rights (they are not the lease holders). Does your friend know how the language of the 1970 lease reads? The fact that the parcel has HBP wells makes me suspect its 1970 lease-holder's lease reads like mine... very generic.  Your friend might want to talk to a good lawyer and look into it. You can look at the ODNR reports to determine if the wells  are producing, but I can tell you this... ever since the Utica feeding freenzy... we suddenly started getting production-checks on a regular schedule.  Huummm... 8*) 

Permalink Reply by Mud Flaps on March 5, 2013 at 6:36pm

I don't think you are understanding me here.

What we are thinking is the the 1970 lessor never had the mineral rights to lease because they were reserved by original landowner in 1900. Nonetheless the 1970 lease was recorded.  My friend was pondering going through ODMA, for deep rights, by claiming the 1970 lease is illegitimate since it was not signed by the 1900 reserved mineral holder(s), and is thereby blocking his ability to re-assume the mineral interest back to him (the surface owner).  He does not feel like he really wants to contest the lease, just wants the mineral interest reinvested with the surface owner.  

 

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on March 6, 2013 at 4:06am

Your friend will have to first legally prove that the 1970 lessor is NOT an heir/successor to the 1900 reservation. If he can establish that, then it might be worth moving forward but the 1970 lessee is going to put up a big fight, I'm sure.

Permalink Reply by James D Conroy II on March 6, 2013 at 5:27am

No disrespect to the local court, but this is in no way a precedent setting ruling.  This opinion will never be referenced by any court outside of the court in which it was issued.  I assume that this case will be appealed, and as such I think it irresponsible to state that this case will have a bearing on "tens of thousands of mineral holders in Ohio."  This case has relevance only to the two parties engaged in the action, and really only maybe another party in that county that has a nearly identical fact pattern--that is it, no one else!  Until one of the district courts actually publishes an opinion there will be no precedent setting value to this ruling outside of the court in which it was made.  It would be wholly inappropriate for any attorney to reference this case outside of the court in which it was issued.  

This battle will continue, I suspect, for another decade.  Battle one has been lost, I envision many more until the Dormant Mineral Act is fully vetted in a court that actually has precedent setting authority, and then it will only be limited to the district that makes the ruling.  

Best of luck to all!  In my humble opinion should the losing party appeal they will find relief. 

James

Permalink Reply by jesse on March 6, 2013 at 9:13am

i consider this law legal stealing 

since the owner of real estate bought the property without the gas and oil if they wanted gas and oil 

they should have bought property that included it in the sale

Permalink Reply by M Thomas on March 6, 2013 at 9:18am

James:

Wendt v Dickerson has not reached a higher court. That is true.

If you read it, though, you will find it, instructive as to how the two versions of the Act operate.

The amended version did change how abandonment and vesting work moving forward.

The amended version of the act, however, did not undo what the 1989 act did automatically.

That's the real point.

Take a look at Wendt v Dickerson -

FINDS that RC. 1.58(A)( 1) and (2) provides that “the reenactment, amendment, or repeal of a statute does not, except as provided in division (B) of this section: (l) Affect the prior operation of
the statute or any prior action taken thereunder" or "(2) Affect any validation, cure, right, privilege, obligation, or liability previously acquired, accrued, accorded, cr incurred thereunder..."

FINDS that a change in the law that deals with substantive rights does not affect such rights even
though no action or proceeding has been commenced, unless the amending or repealing act expressly provides that the rights are affected...

(which it did not) and

Finds that the Plaintiffs were not required to comply with the provisions contained in the amended version of RC 5301.56(E) before their mineral interests in the subject property became vested because the mineral interest became vested in the owner of the surface of the lands on 3/22/1992.

Permalink Reply by jesse on March 7, 2013 at 6:43am

2913.02 Theft.

(A) No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services in any of the following ways:

(1) Without the consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent;

(2) Beyond the scope of the express or implied consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent;

(3) By deception;

(4) By threat;

(5) By intimidation.

(B)

(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of theft.

Permalink Reply by jesse on March 7, 2013 at 8:44am

if you own something someone should not be able to take something that was not 

sold to them it should be the owners choice as to what to what he does with his or her property 

Permalink Reply by Katie Crow on March 7, 2013 at 4:59pm

So... I am going to take that Rolex watch you paid ten thousand for but have not been worn in years because you are not using it and I would.  Does that seem right to you?  If it is your property, why would anybody have a right to take it?  It is thief, plain and simple!

Permalink Reply by Belmontlandowner on March 18, 2013 at 3:03am

Only if I'm keeping the watch in your dresser drawer for 20 years.

There comes a point where you either claim it ( as the law states) or you lose it.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service