Dormant Mineral Statue - 5301.56

In regards to Wiseman vs. Potts and the dormant mineral statue -5301.56, what must the heirs of an old mineral reservation do at present time to preserve their mineral rights, absent the surface owner filing a quite title suit or affidavit of abandonment?

Views: 8374

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by james coffelt on March 27, 2013 at 5:30am

This is a large issue:

The 1989 act suggests owning the property for 20 years prior, moves the gas and oil  ownership to the surface owner.

 

The 2006 act replaces the 1989, adding notice and due process, a constitutional issue.

 

I sold some mineral acreage 1 month ago, the buyer would not buy acreage recaptured usng the 1989 act, only the 2006.

 

My money, and every attorney I talk to, is on the 2006 act, which requires a preserving act, 1 of 6 actions.

Permalink Reply by Olive Sue on March 27, 2013 at 7:46am

I have found this law to be typically government produced.  Why couldn't there have been a straight forward law that said simply no reservation was good on non producing minerals beyond 20 years? Nothing more needed.  And on producing minerals beyond a defined period, oh yes I forgot the millions that would not have been made by attorneys if it was so simple.  We have constructed laws in such a manner that they are in the hands of the interpators and can almost always be argued by the one who is willing to pay the most. Pessimistic approach on my part, probably so!

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on March 27, 2013 at 1:27pm

If laws were written in a straightforward easily understandable manner, the masses would soon realize that full-time politicians are unnecessary. They benefit themselves and legions of attorneys by complicating what should be simple and ensuring job security. Politicians would then actually have to perform and maintain real-world jobs and legislate part time. The career politician would be a thing of the past.

That will NEVER happen.

Permalink Reply by Marc on March 27, 2013 at 5:07pm

which is why sometimes laws which effect liberty and/or property are struck down for lack of due process.

due process is a speed limit sign that reads '45 mph', not '4 x 10 + 5 mph'

only the former easily understandable sign would allow the government to take away your property (issuing a speeding ticket). one question is whether the pre-2006 DMA is too hard to understand to provide mineral owners with due process.

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on March 28, 2013 at 1:15am

The 1989 version of 5301.56 is not at all hard to understand if you take the time to read it. It did however, create a nightmare in the county recorder's offices. The main reason it was amended was to provide a mechanism for county recorders to memorialize those reservations that were vested back with the surface owner. The 1989 version automatically vested them back after 20 years of dormancy but provided no method for publicly identifying those changes. That is a county recorder's worst nightmare as it is their responsibility to record and publish all such transactions and short of researching every deed in their records, they could not keep track of the reservations that vested back to the surface automatically under 1989 5301.56. The amended version provided that method of notification.

Permalink Reply by M Thomas on March 28, 2013 at 6:41am

Three separate judges in three different counties have concluded that a mere mention of a previous reservation does not constitute being the "subject of a title transaction", and thus a saving event.

They all can't be wrong.

Dodd v Croskey stands alone in its interpretation.

This really speaks volumes.

Permalink Reply by Marc on March 28, 2013 at 9:45am

Trial judges are wrong all the time. Why else do you suppose we have appellate courts M Thomas? The Wiseman decision (which has been vacated) and the one from Noble County are shorter in combined length than a high school book report. Literally, your average speeding ticket gives more explanation than either of those "opinions". Neither even attempted any analysis of 5301.56. Probably because they knew their pre determined outcome wasnt supported by the statute. Wendt at least attempt an anlaysis but they didn't get very far.

Permalink Reply by Marc on March 28, 2013 at 10:22am

what speaks volumes is that their was zero confusion about who owns what until very recently.  and what it tells you is that some big city law firms, who prioritize drumming up business above all else, see peddling implausible constructions of the Marketable Title Act and its constituent sections as the best way drive their revenues. It's pretty remarkable that 5301.56 only became controversial when there was money to be made out of making it so. it's good marketing, but ultimately bad law.

0i7okn54zwbdoPermalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on March 27, 2013 at 7:09am

Your hatred toward anyone who disagrees with you is fascinating.  I'm sure you're a super sweet lawyer, despite all evidence to the contrary.  And since that's the case why don't you tell us, is Ohio an ownership in place state or a non-ownership in place state?  Wow us, Jay Fullofrage.

0i7okn54zwbdoPermalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on March 27, 2013 at 9:00am

You're right, you have no anger issues.

"Marcus are you still telling folks that $15k for an 11 acre well pad is the going rate and simply found money they should be grateful to get? ROLMAO. "

I suppose when you run out real things to talk about you just start telling tales.  No matter.  You seem unable to be civil on here so why should I be surprised.

"PS – Offer to pay the going rate and I might at least consider answering a direct question from you! "

So the answer is "no, I won't answer your direct and relatively straightforward question".  Got it. 

0i7okn54zwbdoPermalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on March 28, 2013 at 2:40am

"Can just imagine what an oil and gas well valuation looks like that is prepared by someone that tells landowners that $15K for an 11 acre well pad is the going rate and simply found money'

Still lying to folks I see.  You're certainly an ethical man.

0i7okn54zwbdoPermalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on March 28, 2013 at 9:44am

Listen Troll, that conversation proves that you're a liar and your hatred of opposing opinions obscures your ability to think.  Pad fees were $15,000 at the time.  That was a fact and no amount of kicking and screaming will change that.  But I'm glad that i was able to bait you into killing some time compiling that back and forth.  And since you obviously are posting on this site under a new name I'm curious as to who you used to be.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service