By Jay Carr on Posted in EnergyYesterday, September 25, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued the decision of Dundics v. Eric Petroleum Corporation, 2018-Ohio-3826, which could have broad implications for third-party landmen, land companies and oil and gas producers in Ohio. In that decision, the Court held that the Ohio Real Estate Brokers’ statute, R.C. Chapter 4735, applies to transactions… Continue Reading
By Jay Carr on Posted in EnergyThe Supreme Court of Ohio held last week that a proposed voter initiative creating a Community Bill of Rights for the City of Columbus was properly excluded from the upcoming November 2018 ballot. State ex rel. Bolzenius v. Preisse, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-3708. The initiative, had it been included on the ballot and enacted into law,… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyIn Browne v. Artex Oil Co., Case No. 17 CA 20, the Fifth District recently determined that an action to declare an oil and gas lease terminated due to a lack of production was subject to a breach of contract statute of limitations period of either eight or fifteen years (for more, see here). On… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyOn June 13, 2018, a federal district court rejected a takings challenge to a unit order issued by the Ohio Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management under the state’s statutory unitization law, R.C. 1509.28 The court found that “the statutory unitization procedure set forth in R.C. § 1509.28 operates to protect the correlative rights… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyIn Browne v. Artex (May 31, 2018), Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals held that a claim that an oil and gas lease expired for lack of production is governed by Ohio’s statute of limitation for contract claims—not the state’s longer statute of limitations for recovery of possession of real property. In Browne, the plaintiffs… Continue Reading
By Jay Carr on Posted in EnergyThe Supreme Court of Ohio ruled yesterday that the Mahoning County Board of Elections must place a proposed city charter amendment—the so-called “Youngstown Drinking Water Protection Bill of Rights”—on the May 2018 ballot, which includes several anti-fracking provisions. State ex rel. Khumprakob v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-1602. According to the Court, “[t]he… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyToday, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management invited comments on a draft rule package that would amend the Division’s existing well spacing rules for conventional and horizontal wells. As the Division explains in its Statement of Intent: The DOGRM intends to amend the existing well spacing rule by revising… 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 EnergyOn February 28, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ohio announced that it has accepted an appeal of Blackstone v. Moore (2017-Ohio-1639). Blackstone is a Seventh District Court of Appeals decision that analyzed the Ohio Marketable Title Act (R.C. 5301.47 et seq.) (the “OMTA”) and adopted a four factor test to determine whether a reference to an… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyOn January 30, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected a constitutional challenge to a statutory unitization order issued by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management. In State ex rel. Kerns v. Simmers, the Division issued an order under Ohio’s unitization statute, R.C. 1509.28, that consolidated the relators-landowners’… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyIn a January 3, 2018 decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that Ohio does not recognize an implied covenant to explore further as a distinct implied covenant in oil and gas leases. See Alford v. Collins-McGregor Operating Co., Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-8. Read more about this case in our Client Alert.… Continue Reading
By Jay Carr on Posted in EnergyIn Talbot v. Ward (2017-Ohio-9213), Ohio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals found the Duhig rule “persuasive” in interpreting a deed containing an exception for royalties, bonuses, and rentals. The Duhig rule, first enacted in Texas in 1940, bars a grantor and his successors and assigns from claiming title in a reserved fractional mineral interest when doing so would, in effect,… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyOver the last several weeks, Ohio courts issued a few decisions involving oil and gas issues that we wanted to briefly mention: Schillo v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC (Harrison Cty. C.P., Oct. 16, 2017) – Here, the dispute was whether the lessee properly extended an oil and gas lease through the tender of delay rental payments. … Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyLast week, the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Eclipse Res.—Ohio, LLC v. Madzia, concerning a dispute between a landowner and a lessee regarding the latter’s drilling rights. Among other things, the court found: The lease, which conveyed to the lessee a broad grant of rights to use the landowner’s… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyIn March, we posted about Dundics v. Eric Petroleum Corp., a decision by Ohio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals ruling that landmen were required to obtain real estate broker’s licenses in order to sue for compensation for brokering deals between landowners and oil and gas companies. Today, the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed to review… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyIn a decision released yesterday, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio concluded that Ohio would adopt the “at the well” rule regarding the deduction of post-production costs, the first time the issue has been squarely addressed under Ohio law. Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., N.D.Ohio No. 4:09-cv-2256 (Oct. 25, 2017).… Continue Reading
By Jay Carr on Posted in EnergyIn Sheba v. Kautz, 2017-Ohio-7699, Ohio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals held that a deed executed in 1848 reserving “all of the minerals and coal” did not reserve oil and gas. In reaching its decision, the Court applied ordinary principles of contract interpretation, and heavily relied upon the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in Detlor… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyOn June 16, 2017, Ohio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals issued its decision in Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp. 2017-Ohio-5716, which addresses a number of issues concerning Ohio’s standard for determining whether an oil and gas lease is producing in “paying quantities,” a test that must ordinarily be met in order to continue a lease during its… 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 EnergyOn June 1, 2017, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its decision in Bohlen v. Anadarko. We summarized the facts of this case in our earlier post: The Bohlens entered into a lease with Alliance in 2006 for a one year primary term. Paragraph 3 of the lease contained a delay rental provision: This lease,… Continue Reading
By Ilya Batikov on Posted in EnergyOn May 3, 2017, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management (the Division) issued revised guidelines for statutory unitization applications. The guidance document–largely rewritten from the previous version (issued in May 2014)—contains a number of notable changes, including the following (among others): Unitization applications will now be processed on… 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
