Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by deutchen on February 21, 2014 at 10:22am

There are 2 recent cases out of Monroe county. Blackstone v Moore & Gentile v Ackerman. The ruling in both came out in January. The judge was the same in both, July Selmon. Both referenced Dodd v Croskey. The decision in Gentile sides with the mineral owners and against auto vesting. The decision in Blackstone sides with the surface owner in favor of auto vesting. Does anyone have any idea why this same judge would make opposing decisions on the same issue?

Permalink Reply by deutchen on February 21, 2014 at 1:20pm

Still, as I said the exact opposite stand was taken in Gentile v Ackerman. In that decision it reads:

 "Plaintiffs rely on a number of decisions from this court as well as other trial court opinions and argue that the 1989 version of the Dormant Minerals act applies. However, all of this courts prior decisions on which plaintiffs rely, were issued prior to the Dodd v Croskey opinion. Without question, Dodd v Croskey is clearly controlling law in the Seventh District.

   The court did not mention or consider the possible application of the 1989 version of this statute. Contrary to plaintiffs argument that the appellate court could not consider the prior version of the DMA because it wasn't pled in the plaintiffs complaint this court finds that the Seventh District could have easily applied the 1989 version of the statute if it chose to do so. The Seventh District court, however, did not do so. Instead, the Dodd court expressly held that the court must apply the 2006 version of the statute.

   In the within case, Plaintiffs acquired the property in dispute in 2011 and this action was brought in 2012. The court finds, consistent with the findings in Dodd, that Plaintiffs claims must have been brought under the most recent version of R. C. 5301.56. They were not. This court finds that the 2006 statute applies and accordingly, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law in their favor, against Plaintiffs, on Plaintiffs' claim in their complaint pursuant to the Ohio Dormant Mineral act."

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ryan c on February 22, 2014 at 9:12pm

The Seventh District of Appeals didnt apply the 1989 DMA  because they couldnt... they could only decide on what was plead. Another thing, the Porters didnt even leave the minerals to the Croskeys, I bet the porters didnt even want them to have the rights otherwise they would have put them in the will.  There were no savings events for over 40 years. This case abandons the rights not only under the 1989 DMA but also under the 40 year MTA.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ohioshale on February 22, 2014 at 11:57pm

Wrong.  The recitation of the reservation preserved the interest under the MTA, which, as you know the DMA is a provision of.  And you can't use a law that was repealed and amended, unless you brought some sort of action prior to its repeal...that's not even addressing the constitutional problems with the prior version.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ryan c on February 23, 2014 at 4:24pm

Why not? There were no steps the landowner to take abandon those mineral interests. Technically those mineral rights fell back to coefelt the previous owner before the dodds.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ryan c on February 23, 2014 at 4:29pm

Both statutes the old and the present, were all designed on a 20 year interval or you lose it. Even though they added the notice requirement, do you feel the interpretation its okay to file a late modern day preservation act? Do you think that was the true intent of the statute? To me it seems to contravene the whole statute period..

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page