By Jay Carr on Posted in EnergyEarlier this week, Ohio’s 7th District Court of Appeals again addressed the amount of diligence required to identify the holders of severed mineral interests under the 2006 version of Ohio’s Dormant Mineral Act (2006 DMA). In Sharp v. Miller, 2018-Ohio-4740, the Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling in Shilts v. Beardmore that the 2006 DMA only… Continue Reading
By Jay Carr on Posted in EnergyRecently, in Shilts v. Beardmore (2018-Ohio-863), the Seventh District Court of Appeals analyzed whether a surface owner complied with the notice requirement of the 2006 version of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (Revised Code 5305.56) (the “2006 DMA”). Under the 2006 DMA, in order to abandon a dormant mineral interest, a surface owner must first serve a notice of… Continue Reading
By Jay Carr on Posted in EnergyIn Davis v. Consolidation Coal Company, 2017-Ohio-5703, Ohio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals held that a recorded release of an oil and gas lease qualifies as a “savings event” under the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (R.C. 5301.56) (ODMA). One of the six savings events under the ODMA occurs whenever the mineral interest has been the subject… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyDeciding an issue of first impression in the state, Ohio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals recently held that oil and gas royalty interests may be abandoned under the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (ODMA). See Devitis v. Draper (Mar. 20, 2017). In Draper, the court first looked to its prior decision, Pollock v. Mooney, which found… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyFollowing up on its recent decision in M&H P’Ship v. Hines, Ohio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals has offered further guidance on the term “holder” as used in the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (ODMA)—finding that heirs of the record holder of a dormant mineral interest are “holders” for purposes of the statute, even if they… Continue Reading
By Jay Carr on Posted in EnergyOhio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals recently interpreted the term “holder” under the 2006 version of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (R.C. § 5301.56) (“2006 DMA”) and held that the term should be construed broadly to include the heirs and devisees of the record owner of the severed mineral interest that succeed to the severed… Continue Reading
By Jay Carr on Posted in EnergyToday, in its Order List, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari in Jon D. Walker, Jr. v. Patricia J. Shondrick-Nau, Executrix of the Estate of John R. Noon and Successor Trustee of the John R. Noon Trust. Walker involved interpretation and application of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (R.C. § 5301.56) (the “DMA“), and was… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyOn September 15, 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a number of decisions concerning the application of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (R.C. 5301.56) (DMA). In the lead case, Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., et al., 2016-Ohio-5796 , the Court held that: The 1989 version of the DMA was not self-executing (i.e., did not automatically transfer ownership… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyOn Tuesday, August 16th, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in Tribett v. Shepherd, a case involving the 1989 version of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (1989 DMA). The Court is currently considering a number of cases involving the 1989 DMA, many of which are stayed pending the court’s decision in Walker… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyThe Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral arguments in Eisenbarth v. Reusser today, November 17th, 2015. The appellants in Eisenbarth contend that (1) the 1989 version of the DMA (1989 DMA) had a “rolling” look-back period which operated to vest a severed mineral interest in the owner of the surface if no savings events occurred… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyOn November 5, 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio answered two questions concerning the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (DMA). In Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Buell, the Court held that under the DMA: (1) a recorded oil and gas lease is a title transaction that serves as a savings event that prevents minerals from being abandoned… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyThe Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted two more cases involving the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act: Albanese v. Batman and Lipperman v. Batman. In both cases, the Court will consider the following questions of law: 1. Whether the 1989 Dormant Mineral Act was prospective in nature and operated to have a severed oil and gas interest deemed abandoned and… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyTomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m., the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral arguments in another case involving interpretation of Ohio’s Dormant Mineral Right Act (the “DMA”). In Walker v. Shondrick-Nau, 2014-0803, the Court will consider the following issues concerning the DMA: whether the 2006 version of the DMA is the only version of the DMA to be… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyToday, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its first decision involving the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (“DMA”). In Dodd v. Croskey, 2015-Ohio-2362, the Court unanimously concluded that under the 2006 version of the DMA, a severed mineral interest holder can preserve his or her interest in the minerals by either: (a) filing an affidavit of record that identifies… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyOn June 20, 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the appeal in Wendt v. Dickerson, a case from Ohio’s Fifth Appellate District involving Ohio’s Dormant Mineral Act (“DMA”). The Court will consider: (1) whether the 2006 version of the DMA is solely applicable in determining the ownership of minerals when the surface owner did not… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyOn Wednesday, May 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear the oral argument in Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., et al., a case involving the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (DMA). The Court will consider the following questions certified from the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of Ohio: Does the 2006… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyThe Supreme Court of Ohio scheduled oral arguments in two cases dealing with the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (“DMA”)–Walker v. Shondrick-Nau and Corban v. Chesapeake. Oral arguments in Corban are scheduled for May 6, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. Oral arguments in Walker are scheduled for June 23, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. Corban and Walker both… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyIn Thompson v. Custer (December 19, 2014), the Eleventh District Court of Appeals ruled on the self-executing nature of the 1989 version of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (“1989 DMA”). Drawing on the Seventh District’s decision in Walker v. Shondrick-Nau and the Fifth District’s decision in Wendt v. Dickerson, the Eleventh District held that the… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyOn December 12, the Seventh District Court of Appeals issued two companion decisions regarding the 1989 version of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (“1989 DMA”): Lipperman v. Batman (Case No. 14 BE 2) and Albanese v. Batman (Case No. 14 BE 22). The decisions concerned mineral rights that were severed sometime prior to 1969 and came to… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyAs a follow-up to our post from June, the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the appeal in Swartz v. Householder and Shannon v. Householder, two related cases involving the 1989 version and the 2006 version of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (DMA). The Court will consider the following issues: (1) whether the 1989 DMA is… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyRecently, the Seventh District Court of Appeals ruled on two cases involving the 1989 and 2006 versions of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (“DMA”). In Taylor v. Crosby (September 24, 2014), the court considered whether mineral rights severed in 1971 were abandoned under the 1989 DMA and 2006 DMA. The trial court construed the 1989… Continue Reading
