Login
The ONLY national organization representing, solely and without compromise, oil & gas royalty owners interests.

Ohio Dormant Mineral Acts

  • 09/22/2016 9:11 AM
    Message # 4268957
    Anonymous

    Ohio Supreme Court Reconciles Application of the 1989 and 2006 Versions of Dormant Mineral Act

    Friday, September 16, 2016

    On September 15, 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its much-anticipated decisions in multiple appeals dealing with the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act, Ohio Revised Code § 5301.56 (DMA).  Using Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. (Slip Op. No. 2016-Ohio-5796), as the lead case to determine the pivotal legal issues, the Supreme Court held:

    1. The 1989 version of the DMA is not self-executing, and, therefore, did not cause ownership of mineral rights to automatically transfer to the owner of the surface rights;

    2. Because the 1989 DMA is not self-executing, a surface owner must bring a quiet title action to obtain a judicial decree that a mineral interest has been abandoned and is merged with the surface estate pursuant to the 1989 DMA; and

    3. The 2006 DMA, and not the 1989 DMA, applies to all claims asserted after June 30, 2006, the effective date of the 2006 amendments to the statute.

    The Court applied its holding in Corban to all of the pending DMA appeals, but provided specific commentary only in its decisions in Walker v. Shondrick-Nau (Slip Op. No. 2016-Ohio-5793), and Albanese v. Batman and Lipperman v. Batman (combined) (Slip Op. No. 2016-Ohio-5814).  The remaining decisions merely reference the result (affirmance or reversal of the appellate court decision), with a cursory reference to CorbanWalker, or the Court’s previous decision in Dodd v. Croskey (143 Ohio St.3d 293).

    Corban v. Chesapeake: The 1989 DMA Is Not Self-Executing, and the 2006 DMA Applies to All Claims Brought to Court After June 30, 2006

    In Corban, the Supreme Court was tasked with answering the following certified question of state law from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio: “Does the 2006 version or the 1989 version of the [Dormant Mineral Act] apply to claims asserted after 2006 alleging that the rights to oil, gas, and other minerals automatically vested in the surface land holder prior to the 2006 amendments as a result of abandonment?”

    The Court answered the certified question and concluded that the 2006 DMA applies to all claims asserted after June 30, 2006.  In comparing the 1989 DMA to the Ohio Marketable Title Act, the Supreme Court did not equate the former’s use of the word “deemed” with the latter’s use of “extinguish” and “null and void.”  Rather, the Court determined that the 1989 DMA creates a conclusive presumption (i.e., an evidentiary device) as to the abandonment of severed mineral interests.  Therefore, the surface owner must bring a quiet title action in order to terminate abandoned mineral rights pursuant to the 1989 DMA.  The Court believed that the Ohio General Assembly did not intend that mineral rights would automatically transfer to surface owners outside of the record chain of title.

    The 2006 DMA contains a specific procedure for serving notice upon mineral interest holders, who must either file a claim to preserve or an affidavit in order to protect their interest from abandonment.  These requirements help to establish the surface owner’s marketable title.  After the 2006 DMA became effective on June 30, 2006, surface owners were required to comply with its notice and recording procedures before the mineral rights could be deemed abandoned and vested to the surface owner.  Importantly, the Court indicated that these procedures apply equally to claims that mineral interests were abandoned prior to, or after, the amendments became effective.  The 2006 DMA further avoids the constitutional perils of retroactivity because it applies prospectively as to all claims asserted after its effective date.  The amended statute implements a procedure for dealing with claims to mineral rights, and does not adversely affect any substantive rights that may have accrued prior to its enactment.

    http://www.natlawreview.com/article/ohio-supreme-court-reconciles-a...