Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on February 7, 2012 at 2:33am

Wiseman vs Potts

Attachments:

• Wiseman vs Potts.pdf, 752 KB

Permalink Reply by Thomas on February 7, 2012 at 11:09pm

Thanks Finnbear!!

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on February 8, 2012 at 6:47am

Thank you for posting this. I have a second piece of Belmont County property where this case would seem to set a precedent.

BluFlame

Permalink Reply by Belmontlandowner on February 8, 2012 at 8:26am

How would you go about implementing this previous code? Since many of our properties would fall under the old code, the property should have reverted to the surface owner during those years between 89 and 06. SInce this was the law at the time and no official process was needed to regain the rights how do we now go about making sure that the code between 89 and 06 is recognized for those of us who had qualifying property during that time? If our surface rights would have automatically reverted to us during those years, we should not have to now go through the process of the amended code. I'm not really sure how to proceed with this. Who do you contact? Why should you have to engage an attorney to argue something that was the law at that time? Not sure how to implement this process.....

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on February 8, 2012 at 10:13am

Suzanne,

 Please take this message from me with a grain of salt as I am not in the legal community. While the code issue seems straight forward, there is room for interpretation. Each circumstance will have its nuances. Furthermore, you will probably meet resistance since there could be a lot of $$ at stake.

   Therefore, the best advice I can give you is to engage with an O&G attorney. If you've followed this website for any length of time, several have been mentioned. If your case is strong, the legal fees could be a pittance compared to your potential financial benefit.                      

   After reviewing the facts in your case, your attorney should advise you the wisdom of proceeding with legal action. This initial phase of his work should be RELATIVELY inexpensive. Assuming he sees merit in your case, he should also lay out his legal strategy going forward and the estimated cost. Keep in mind the cost can escalate dependent on the resolve and pocket depth of the opposition. You can then compare the estimated legal cost to the potential financial benefit of signing bonus and royalties, and make a decision to proceed or to throw in the towel.

   Hope this helps you!

BluFlame

Permalink Reply by Belmontlandowner on February 8, 2012 at 10:32am

The problem is actually finding an attorney who knows the law inside and out. It seems that many are learning as they go since this is new territory they are wandering in.  My point is that the law that was in effect between 89 and 06 should have already come into play back then, consequently those of us who qualify under that statute should already have the mineral rights reinstated due to the lack of activity during the 20 year period preceding the 89 law up until the amended code in 2006. Therefore we shouldn't have to go through any additional legal proceedings to regain what we already were entitled to back in 89. We should not have to fight for a right that was already given to us back in 89. I just don't know what the steps would be to insure that those of us who qualify under the old statute are recognized.

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on February 8, 2012 at 11:00am

Hi Suzanne,

    I understand your reluctance, but I don't believe you will achieve satisfactory resolution without assistance of an attorney. An hour of an attorney's time should be sufficient to determine if you have a valid argument. Make certain you come armed with all relevant documents, and it will save you money.

  Maybe the firm noted in the Wiseman Vs Potts case would fit your bill as "an attorney who knows the law inside & out"???

BluFlame

Permalink Reply by time will tell on February 12, 2012 at 9:52pm

Thanks Mr. Shale .

Permalink Reply by Dan on March 4, 2013 at 12:35am

A couple of weeks ago a verdict was handed down in precedent-setting case involving mineral rights and the Ohio Dormant Mineral Title Act.  In Wendt v Dickerson, Nathan Vaughan of KWGD successfully argued that the Wendts own their minerals, since the ODMTA of 1989 applies in their case.  If anyone is or knows someone who is involved in a title dispute over minerals, or you want to learn more about the two different Acts in Ohio and which one applies in which cases, then click here to go to a thread in General Shale Discussions that has more information.

Permalink Reply by Belmontlandowner on March 4, 2013 at 6:13am

Here is the link to the Court decision in the above decision.

 

http://www.ohiodormantmineralact.com/

 

We finally were able to have the judge approve the quiet title for our mineral rights. 13 months and $12K later - but it's done.

Permalink Reply by DJM on March 4, 2013 at 10:05am

Suzanne,Congrats on getting your case resolved. I am so sorry you and yours had to do it such an expense. 

                                 Good luck and god bless

                                           Dan McClintock

Permalink Reply by Belmontlandowner on March 4, 2013 at 11:49am

Thanks Dan. I'm just glad that the courts are favoring the side of the land owner in these issues.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page