"Ohio 7th district rules ODMA is 20 yr fixed period"

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/7/2014/2014-ohio-3792.pdf

Affirms Eisenbarth v. Reusser decision based on 20 yr fixed period.  There was a saving event in 1974, within 20 yrs of the ODMA 1989.  They did not have to have another saving event in 1994, 20 yrs after the first saving event. 

Views: 1010

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

015334grltd9mPermalink Reply by 015334grltd9m on September 3, 2014 at 3:27pm

So I take it that the actual separation of the minerals from the surface took place?

Permalink Reply by Marc on September 3, 2014 at 3:44pm

Fairly straight forward plain reading of the statute and application of Riddel v. Layman.  Look for the concurrence to become the controlling law in short order.

015334grltd9mPermalink Reply by 015334grltd9m on September 3, 2014 at 3:59pm

This is interesting, just now began studying it.  The old man, divided the minerals equally but only gave the right to lease to one back in the 50's.  Now one clan says, I have the right to lease so it is all mine (bonus). 

Court says, bullcrap! you may have the right to lease but the minerals are not one's entirely.  As a layperson, Am I getting it right?

Permalink Reply by ryan c on September 3, 2014 at 5:28pm

They stated the 1989 ODMA as using any "random date."  Its not using a random date. Its a 20 year period from the last known savings event. That's straight forward.

Permalink Reply by dan on September 3, 2014 at 5:44pm

are you a lawyer ryan c?

Permalink Reply by ryan c on September 3, 2014 at 6:04pm

nope, are you?

Permalink Reply by dan on September 3, 2014 at 6:10pm

yu just sound on top of it and smart is all?   thougt i'd ask

Permalink Reply by ryan c on September 4, 2014 at 6:43am

Not a lawyer, but well educated and on top of the subject.  These judges seem to be all over the place and have some bad word usage.  I would really like to see the Ohio Supreme Court jump in and rule.  Im curious as to why the Supreme Court hasn't replied back as to whether or not an oil and gas lease is a savings event.

Permalink Reply by ryan c on September 4, 2014 at 6:45am

Also if you read the entire ruling, it seems to be like a page is missing. There should be a page 43 but for some reason is cut off.

Permalink Reply by bessieblues on September 4, 2014 at 7:18am
Ryan , I too noticed what appears to be a missing page. It will probably be a while for the Ohio Supreme Court to rule on the "lease" issue as the case was just heard on Aug. 20. (Chesapeake v. Buell)
I find the one judge's rant on the lack of effectivity of the 1989 DMA (unsolicited and unnecessary) to be almost personal. It seems to be in line with the visiting judges opinion on Dahlgren v. Brown. The 7th district already touched on their feelings about Dahlgren v. Brown in the Walker v. Noon case. Maybe this latest rant, discounting the 1989 DMA, is a slap back for the comments about Dahlgren v. Brown during the Walker v. Noon case??
Very interesting to say the least.
Permalink Reply by Dexter Green on September 4, 2014 at 7:30am

If a lease is not a savings event then I don't know what is. 

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service