Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by craig on October 28, 2014 at 1:41pm

On the Ohio, I don't know as of yet. I do remember reading sometime ago on this topic elsewhere in the US that one state owned the land under the river to  the opposite river bank. And even that was under discussion because river beds tend to change over time. I'll have to look into it... here's a start for Ohio :

http://www.oilandgaslawreport.com/2013/05/09/ownership-of-minerals-...

Partially:

"Later, in a 2001 quiet title action, there was a ditch, now a depression, used in an 1854 deed to describe the boundaries of abutting property. While the ditch as a monument to effect the boundary may have been unclear, the law was not:

Under Ohio law, as well as under the common law, “owners of lands situated on the banks of navigable streams running through [Ohio], are also owners of the beds of the rivers to the middle of the stream.” Of course, this rule applies where there is no express reference or grant beyond the boundary of the near bank. Where there is an express grant that goes beyond the near bank, the unambiguous language of the deed must be given effect, absent some other rule of law being applicable.

Here the appellees’ deed conforms to the common law rule and expressly grants title to the middle of the stream. However, the appellant’s deed expressly grants title to the low water mark of the far bank, i.e. the west bank. This express grant creates a conflict that cannot be resolved by simply applying the common law rule of Admr’s of Gavit, supra, to render that grant nugatory."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe on October 28, 2014 at 3:12pm

Oh, OK

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page