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: 33865

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on July 2, 2014 at 6:48am

Under the 89 version, any minerals that were dormant for 20 years or more were to "expire" and be automatically vested back with the surface owner after 20 years or more of no activity. If the mineral holder intended to preserve them, they needed to create a separate deed for the reserved minerals and file it with the county recorder. Many of the "holders" of these old dormant mineral reservations were not even aware of the reservations because they were done by previous generations and therefore did nothing to hang onto them. The 89 version created a problem for county recorders who had no way to memorialize all those "expired" reservations that automatically vested back with the surface owners after 20 years of inactivity. It would be virtually impossible for the recorder's office to go back through all old deeds and find all old mineral reservations and then do the requisite title work to discover which reservations had expired under the 89 law and then file a document stating such. The 2006 version "fixed" that problem in that it required the surface owner to file and publish affidavits declaring the mineral reservation "abandoned". If no one answered the affidavit, the county recorder would memorialize that change in ownership of the minerals for all to see. In a nutshell, if a mineral reservation had 20 or more years of inactivity between 1989 and 2006, the 89 law caused that reservation to automatically vest back to the surface owner. The lawsuits we are now seeing are the results of that for the current landowners who are cleaning up title to the minerals that were rejoined with the surface between 1989 and 2006.

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on September 14, 2014 at 2:48pm

Finnbear,

   There are not 20 years between 1989 & 2006. IMHO, the 1989 law provided a 20-yr "lookback". Therefore, if there is not a saving act in any 20-consecutive-yr period starting in 1969, severed mineral rights automatically revert to the surface owner. 

  The 2006 law did not change the 20-yr rule, but necessitated an affidavit, as you have indicated. As I understand the 2006 change, the 1989 law will still apply if the 20-yr inactivity period can still be established. Assuming I am correct, any 20-yr inactivity period would need to have commenced in 1986 or earlier to avoid the affidavit requirement. This may have been what you meant to say in the second to last sentence of your message.

  I hope others comment on this, as I am uncertain of the accuracy of my assertion. Happy not to be on the Supreme Court for this decision. Any opinion will create a group of unhappy campers!

BluFlame

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on September 15, 2014 at 4:10am

I probably should not have used the 1989 date in that sentence. The 1989 law did provide a 20 yr rolling lookback. Basically, any mineral reservation that had 20 years or more of inactivity (no "saving" event) prior to the 2006 revision would have automatically vested back with the surface due to the 1989 statute. You are correct about the 20 year period needing to begin 1986 or earlier to automatically vest back with the surface without the required affidavit that the 2006 version provided for. And yes, no matter how this all shakes out in the courts, one side or the other will end up VERY unhappy. We're talking about millions and millions of dollars involved here and nothing riles people up like $$$ does.

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on September 15, 2014 at 5:29am

  Once the Ohio Supreme Court renders an opinion, can it be appealed to the US Supreme Court? (Cannot believe it could not be appealed) If so, and considering the $$$ involved as you've noted, I cannot imagine that some party to these proceedings would not file the ultimate appeal regardless of the OSC opinion.

 

BluFlame

Permalink Reply by Den on September 3, 2014 at 2:42pm

While the district court affirmed the original verdict, they take a slightly different take on the DMA.  In this case the DMA was used to determine there was a saving event in 1974, that the Reusser party did get to keep their mineral rights.   Were any of the other cases using ODMA a result of "any" 20 yr period up to 2006, or a fixed period of time. This ruling invalidates a sliding 20 yr window of time.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/7/2014/2014-ohio-3792.pdf

Permalink Reply by Dexter Green on September 3, 2014 at 4:54pm

They're saying that vesting isn't automatic, which is a good thing.  Government cannot simply give something of yours to someone else because you didn't use it in the way that they want you to and within the time frame allotted.  

Permalink Reply by Shower Bath on September 4, 2014 at 1:21am

The Ohio Supreme Court will be ruling on the dormant mineral rights laws. See the link.....

http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/ohio-supreme-court-hear-mineral-ri...

SB

Permalink Reply by Den on September 4, 2014 at 1:31pm

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/7/2014/2014-ohio-1499.pdf

here is the district court ruling on walker - noon case which seems to contradict their recent ruling.  In this case they ruled for automatic.  Every case seems to have a slightly different twist to it and it depends on the specifics of the original ruling that is being challenged.   Walker bought the land in 2009, so filed under the newer ODMA, which the original mineral owner filed a claim to perserve, yet the court ruled there was no saving event under the older ODMA, so it was automatically forfeited (before the current landowner even bought the land).    It says that a reservation of mineral rights during a title transfer is not one of the saving events under the ODMA which has also been ruled in other cases.

Permalink Reply by bessieblues on September 4, 2014 at 1:59pm
Den, you might be confusing ONE judge's opinion ,or dare I say rant with the recent ruling in Eisenbarth v. Reusser.
Permalink Reply by Den on September 4, 2014 at 3:14pm

same court, two different decisions.  course the end of the eisenbarth v reusser ruling is missing, so wonder what the rest was about.

Permalink Reply by ohioshale on September 9, 2014 at 6:29am
Permalink Reply by Den on September 19, 2014 at 4:45am

The end of the ruling is still missing from the pdf file.  The end page should show the judges names.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service