1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act now applied by 6 Judges in 6 different Counties
The 1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act has now been applied by 6 Judges in 6 different counties.
Tuscawaras - Wendt v Dickerson - Feb 21, 2013
Monroe - Eisenbarth v Reusser - June 6, 2013
Jefferson - Shannon v Householder - July 17, 2013
Columbiana - Bender v Morgan - March 20, 2013
Noble - Walker v Noon - March 20, 2013
Morgan - Wiseman v Potts - June 29, 2010
They have all concluded that it does apply when reviewing a title and that it was an automatic abandoning.
Go here to read the new decisions.
Views: 33869
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Marc on
-
Make that seven counties. You're forgetting Dodd v. Croskey out of Harrison County. Dodd v. Croskey takes a different view from the other decisions on at least some of the fundamental aspects of the Dormant Mineral Act (both 1989 and 2006).
Can you update everybody on the status of the Wendt v. Dickerson appeal at the Court of Appeals? From state-wide perspective the real question in 2014 will be how the various trial court readings of the DMA fair when appeals courts take a closer look.
-
-
There is a new case now which makes 7 judges and 7 counties applying the 1989 version of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act.
Belmont - Tribett v Shepherd - July 22, 2013
-
-
Can someone please update on the Wendt appeal? Has it been scheduled for argument yet?
-
Permalink Reply by marina blue on -
new case decision on 1989 dormant mineral act, dahlgren vs brown.. carroll county. judge decided in favor of mineral owners.. no savings event happened... this is totally opposite from wendt vs dickerson and the other cases.
-
-
The judge completely took apart the "auto-vesters" argument. Extremely impressive opinion.
-
Permalink Reply by marina blue on
-
Im sure all these cases will be decided by the ohio supreme court.
-
-
Undoubtedly. The seventh district Court of Appeals seems to cover the geographical area where the lions' share of the oil and gas development is concentrated. For the meantime, Wendt v. Dickerson is somewhat besides the point.
-
-
It's now 7 counties and 8 decisions.
Monroe - Marty v Dennis - April 11, 2013
http://www.ohiodormantmineralact.com/marty-v-dennis/
Complete list
Tuscawaras - Wendt v Dickerson - Feb 21, 2013
Monroe - Marty v Dennis - April 11, 2013
Monroe - Eisenbarth v Reusser - June 6, 2013
Jefferson - Shannon v Householder - July 17, 2013
Columbiana - Bender v Morgan - March 20, 2013
Noble - Walker v Noon - March 20, 2013
Morgan - Wiseman v Potts - June 29, 2010
Belmont - Tribett v Shepherd - July 22, 2013
-
-
Also great article on the appellate court's ruling on Dodd v Croskey -
"Dodd v. Croskey - Seventh District Court of Appeals Rules on Dormant Mineral Act and Defines the "subject of" a Title Transaction"
-
-
Wild question about this law;
An attorney just contacted my grandma about her losing her mineral rights on a farm that she sold 50 years ago. After checking at recorders office I see that the current surface owner has had a lot of activity. He has leased to a Utica driller recently and prior to that had another action called a miscellaneous affidavit see instrument. Any idea if the dormant mineral rights may have been used here?
-
-
A new case took the opposite view of the other 8 or 9 decisions regarding the automatic, self-executing nature of the 1989 ODMA.
The big problem with Dahlgren v. Brown out of Carrol County is that the decision veers off Ohio law.
He suggests that the 1989 ODMA at best creates an "inchoate right," an imperfect right that needs "judicial confirmation".
The problem with that is that the law specifically says, "shall be deemed abandoned and vested in the owner of the surface."
A vested right needs nothing else to perfect it. It is an unquestioned right.
The decision will not survive in the higher courts and sticks out like a sore thumb from all of the others.
-
-
What the judge said is that the law needs to be implemented (as is the case with most laws). In other words, the statute not self-executing in transferring mineral interests. That's why he compared and contrasted the language of the original DMA with the language of MTA, and quoted the express legislative purpose of the statute. The judge analyzed the statute point by point, almost to the point of redundancy, rather than seizing on irrelevant, foreign law or taking a single statutory phrase out of context. A rock solid opinion.
Then there's Wendt v. Dickerson, which is barely readable.
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
