Dormant Mineral Statue - 5301.56

In regards to Wiseman vs. Potts and the dormant mineral statue -5301.56, what must the heirs of an old mineral reservation do at present time to preserve their mineral rights, absent the surface owner filing a quite title suit or affidavit of abandonment?

Views: 8374

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Marc on March 27, 2013 at 5:43pm

Jay,

I would be interested to know what analysis you see in the Wendt v. Dickerson decision.

By the way, Dodd clearly IS relevant to the 1989 act. You're willfully ignoring facts if you pretend otherwise. "the subject of a title transaction" subsection reads exactly the same in the pre and post 2006 versions of DMA. Dodd was decided based on the interpretation of that language.

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on March 28, 2013 at 1:32am

And the intention of that "subject of a title transaction" is that the mineral reservation be the subject of said transaction, not that it be mentioned in some other transaction such as the transfer of the previously severed surface interest.

Permalink Reply by M Thomas on March 28, 2013 at 6:45am

I'll repeat this here -

Three separate judges in three different counties have concluded that a mere mention of a previous reservation does not constitute being the "subject of a title transaction", and thus a saving event.

They all can't be wrong.

Dodd v Croskey stands alone in its interpretation.

This really speaks volumes.

Permalink Reply by Marc on March 28, 2013 at 9:53am

Agreed Marcus: Jay is one of those people who ruins these discussion boards for everybody. Only thing worse than being uninformed is being extremely confident in your own misinformation.

Permalink Reply by Marc on March 28, 2013 at 10:39am

"no real legal clue"? Perhaps you should take a mulligan like the Wiseman v. Potts judge and proofread and edit your posts before the 15 minutes expires.

Permalink Reply by Marc on March 28, 2013 at 11:11am

So clearly, you're familiar with the most recent decision on the Wiseman case?

You can read both decisions here. It's the one place online I've found with both Wiseman decisions side by side.

Permalink Reply by M Thomas on March 30, 2013 at 9:08am

US Supreme Court - Texaco v Short on "automatic abandonment"

In 1971 the Indiana Legislature enacted a statue providing that served mineral interest that in not used for a period of 20 years automatically lapses and reverts to the current surface owner of the property, unless the mineral owner, files a statement of claim in the local county recorder’s office.[1]

If the mineral interest owner fails to comply with these conditions, this interest is extinguished, and the mineral rights in the land are, by operation of law, merged with the surface estate, to the benefit of the surface owner.[1]

Thus, under the terms of the Dormant Mineral Interests Act, the mineral interest automatically lapsed on September 2, 1973, when the 2-year grace period expired. On April 28, 1977, appellee gave notice that the mineral interests had lapsed.[10]

Permalink Reply by Susan Tribett on March 30, 2013 at 9:24am

Marc, do you ride the short bus?

Permalink Reply by Marc on April 2, 2013 at 3:19am

Jay:

Stop harassing me.

Permalink Reply by jesse on April 1, 2013 at 4:12am

Private property shall ever be held
inviolate, but subservient to the public
welfare. When taken in time of war or
other public exigency, imperatively requiring its immediate seizure or for the
purpose of making or repairing roads,
which shall be open to the public, without charge, a compensation shall be
made to the owner, in money, and in
all other cases, where private property
shall be taken for public use, a compensation therefor shall first be made
in money, or first secured by a deposit
of money; and such compensation shall
be assessed by a jury, without deduction for benefits to any property of the
owner.

Permalink Reply by Marc on April 3, 2013 at 4:16pm

The debate is whether recitals of prior reservations fall within the subject of the title transaction, not whether instant reservations to a third party are void. Dodd v. Croskey says yes, and Wendt v. Dickerson says no. IMHO, Croskey is right, if for no other reason than the cases you cite (and Wendt relied on) aren't on point due to the distinction highlighted above. Croskey's canon of construction is on point. Also, Croskey's result is easier to reconcile than Wendt's with the ultimate purpose of 5301.47-5301.56. The purpose was to empower decision making - not paralyze it.

As for the process/timing of vesting under 1989 DMA, read the 2006 Report of the Natural Resources Committee of the Ohio Bar recommending revision of 5301.56:

"However, in the years since enactment of ORC § 5301.56, Courts and practitioners have experienced difficulty in interpreting this statute, which resulted in the Natural Resources Committee’s preparation of this amendment.

The major changes addressed in the amendment are the following:

1) the original statute provided for the lapse to occur if no specified activities took place within "the preceding twenty years." Questions arose as to whether that language meant 20 years preceding enactment of the statute, 20 years preceding commencement on an action to obtain the minerals or any 20-year period in the chain of title. To clarify this, the amendment provides that the effective period is the 20 years immediately preceding the filing of a notice;"

The Due Process concerns are clear and go beyond anything the Supreme Court was presented with in Short v. Texaco (itself a 5-4 decision rendered by a quite liberal early 80's court).

P.S. Which law firm do you work for?

Permalink Reply by Michael Kasler on April 3, 2013 at 6:51am

Can anyone tell me if a recorded lease is a title transaction, or saving event, as it applies to ORC 5301.56?

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service