By Jay Carr and Mark Hylton on Posted in EnergyOn June 1, 2020, the Seventh District Court of Appeals once again addressed the level of diligence required to identify holders of a severed mineral interest under the 2006 version of Ohio’s Dormant Mineral Act (2006 DMA). In Fonzi v. Gary D. Brown & Eclipse Res., 2020-Ohio-3631, the appellee-surface owner filed his notice of abandonment… Continue Reading
By Jay Carr on Posted in EnergyOn January 21, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted an appeal from the Seventh District Court of Appeals’ decision in West v. Bode, Case No. 18-MO-0017. The issue accepted for review by the Court is whether, due to a perceived conflict between the statutes, the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (R.C. 5301.56), being the specific… Continue Reading
By Jay Carr on Posted in EnergyOhio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals recently held once again that fee oil and gas interests are subject to possible extinguishment under Ohio’s Marketable Title Act (MTA). See Stalder v. Bucher, 2019-Ohio-936. In Stalder, the mineral owners advanced two arguments against extinguishment. First, they claimed that the MTA no longer applies to mineral interests. In… 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 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 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 EnergyOn March 11, 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted review of two cases involving the 1989 version of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (“1989 DMA”): Eisenbarth v. Reusser and Dahlgren v. Brown Farm Properties, L.L.C. Eisenbarth and Dahlgren both concern the issues of whether the 1989 DMA is self-executing, and, if the 1989 DMA… 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 Greg Russell on Posted in EnergyOn June 2, 2014, the Seventh District Court of Appeals issued a decision concerning the 1989 version of Ohio’s Dormant Mineral Act (DMA). In Swartz v. Householder, the Court affirmed its earlier decision in Walker v. Noon and found that the 1989 DMA is self-executing, specifically rejecting the trial court decision in Dahlgren v. Brown… Continue Reading
By Greg Russell on Posted in EnergyWe thought you might be interested in these two recent trial court decisions addressing the effectiveness of the 1989 version of Ohio’s Dormant Mineral Act – M&H Partnership v. Hines, Harrison C.P. No. CHV-2012-0059 (January 14, 2014); and Gentile v. Ackerman, Monroe C.P. No. 2012-110 (January 13, 2014). To find out how they come out,… Continue Reading
By Greg Russell on Posted in EnergyIn McLaughlin v. CNX Gas Company, Case No. 5:13CV1502 (December 13, 2013), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio recently concluded that a release of an oil and gas lease qualified as a title transaction that preserved minerals from being abandoned under the 1989 Dormant Mineral Act (the “1989 DMA”). The facts were straightforward: In 1957,… Continue Reading
By Greg Russell on Posted in EnergyWe thought you might be interested in the following cases out of Ohio: Blazek v. Reserve Energy Exploration (Belmont C.P.): Finding, for example, that the payment of annual delay rentals during the primary term negates the implied covenant to develop (at least during that period); and that the lessee has no duty to disclose the "true… Continue Reading
