Walker v Nau: supreme court case decided in favor of mineral rights owners!!!

Check out the Ohio Supreme Court website to read the decisions. Both Walker v Nau & Corban v Chesapeake have been decided in favor of the mineral rights owners. There is no automatic vesting. Hurray!!!

Views: 6354

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks for the clarification Scott.

Best Regards,

Scott, But every 20 years you will have to refile a mineral preservation claim unless you have production in order to keep your minerals. Otherwise surface owners can again file a claim, but they do have to try and contact you.  I am always worried they will not find me or say they cannot find me so I will be proactive. My Attorney thought that if there is a Deed for the Mineral Rights that you will not have to refile a mineral preservation claim every 20 years.  We have a Deed with a new parcel number with the County just to be on the safe side. 


Thank you...I'll mention that when I talk with my mom next.  Currently, everything is leased, but no production yet.

Bessie, Are you a surface owner who is trying to "marry" severed mineral rights with the surface?
Just curious.
The absolute correct decision! One cannot take away another's property just because the property owner has not said 'it's still my property'. It does not matter if it is mineral rights or any other property. If I don't drive my car for 20 years, you do not have the right to come take it.
where is the like button?!? Like!

the 20 year rule is still in effect, I have a  acre plot that I have owned for many years and the so called mineral owner has neither production or perseveration action within a twenty year period. I can now see what I have to do to remerge oil and gas rights .

They will still have 60 days from notice to file the preservation per the 2006 act.

can anybody spell this out in plain language? what exactly does this mean?

Good question stevo. Not all of us have been to law school.lol.

I can only tell you how I read it, definitely not a lawyer but it seems that SCO decided that a surface owner (between 89 and 2006) had to file a quiet title action with the courts to declare the minerals were abandoned, if they didn't do that the minerals still belong to the mineral owner, after 2006, that law now applies to all claims and you have to follow the guidelines in the 2006. IMHO only. Lol

I read it applicable to 'severed' minerals only.

Document to prove minerals were 'severed' would be required seems to me.

Also noting no 'quiet title action' was required between 1989 to 2006.

Also important to note that the minerals were 'severed' in the Walker vs. Nau case.



© 2023   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service