SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-178
THE STATE EX REL. CLAUGUS FAMILY FARM, L.P. v. SEVENTH DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.
HUSTACK ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. BECK ENERGY CORPORATION, APPELLEE.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
may be cited as State ex rel. Claugus Family Farm, L.P. v. Seventh Dist. Court
of Appeals, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-178.]
Oil and gas leases—Class certification—Validity of leases—Covenant to reasonably develop the land—Delay rentals do not extend beyond the fixed term of a lease.
(Nos. 2014-0423 and 2014-1933—Submitted December 15, 2015—Decided
January 21, 2016.)
IN MANDAMUS and PROHIBITION.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Monroe County, Nos. 12 MO 6, 13 MO 2,
13 MO 3, and 13 MO 11, 2014-Ohio-4255.
Do you have a link to this decision?
Got the above link to a synopsis from the first searcherone reply on page 1 of the replies (2nd reply on page 1).
Don't know if that's exactly what you're looking for but thinking that sums it up and is basically what everyone is using as the best reference here.
Ok, here we go on another scenario. Read and reread the decision. Bottom line says Beck tolling order DENIED. Go back and read Becks last request on tolling and it does say tolling order expired????? which might indicate the first one expired and the Supreme Court denied any extension when the last line of the decision says "Beck request for tolling denied". Now the rest of the story (maybe) if your lease expired during the first tolling order (?) and those months of tolling are now past, are you free and clear?
Any attorneys out there, we have lots of arm chair ones (and maybe I've been one), perhaps we need a real definitive answer.
Not any kind of attorney armchair or otherwise - only trying to keep my head straight on things such by applying my own common sense / intuition - and it's tough too - especially reading all of these varying opinions.
MHO / it seems to me that the Supreme Court basically upended / over-turned what the lower court decided,
If the lower court denied Beck's requested 'Tolling Order' and the Supreme Court granted it - I'd guess that the Supreme Court's decision voided the lower court's denial.
JMHO as a layman as I read all of this.
The Supreme Court denied a request for a new tolling order.
I believe the original tolling order expired with the decision by the Supreme Court.
This is just an arm chair attorney opinion.
My apologies to those who don't appreciate the opinions of arm chair attorneys. 1st amendment, free speech and all that.
Here is link to the 17 pages of the decision. Perhaps some of you clicked the link on the summary page and got to it, but if not here it is.
This is what I have read so many times.....and this is what others are reading #41 lines and below again "Finally Beck has filed a motion..........." and motion is denied.
Others continue to interpret this differently and as an advantage??????
It appears to me that the 'Beck motion' was for the Tolling Order (as I read) which (as I also read) was denied.
That seems to me to mean Beck would have to pay the 'Delay Rental' for the 'denied Tolling period' I guess.
Noting there is a Justice Pfeifer who dissented on the side of Claugus.
What's that mean to the decision ?
Is that another Class Action waiting to happen I wonder ?
Complicated is putting it mildly.
Enough to give a person a migraine.
The dissent means nothing to this case.
However, it may be cited in future court cases as support for an opinion or an argument.