Albanese v. Batman (Slip Opinion)
148 Ohio St. 3d 85
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Nile and Katheryn Batman hold severed mineral interests under Belmont County, Ohio properties that originated from Frances Batman (recorded 1981 affidavit) and passed to Nile. Frances’s will was filed in Ohio in 1989.
- Wayne Lipperman and James Albanese (substituted by executor Mark Albanese after his death) own adjacent surface parcels and each leased surface oil-and-gas rights to energy companies. The Batmans separately leased their mineral interests to energy companies.
- Lipperman and Albanese sued the Batmans and lessees seeking to quiet title, claiming the severed mineral interests had been abandoned under the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (ODMA) and asking to cancel or reassign the Batmans’ leases.
- Trial court applied the 1989 ODMA and held prior recordings (1981 affidavit and 1989 will filing) preserved the Batmans’ mineral interests; summary judgment granted to energy-company defendants.
- The Seventh District reversed as to the look-back period’s character under the 1989 ODMA (treating it as a fixed period), but the Ohio Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and held the 2006 ODMA applies to claims filed after June 30, 2006.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which version of the ODMA governs claims filed after June 30, 2006? | Albanese/Lipperman: 1989 ODMA should govern (dispute over rolling vs fixed look-back). | Batmans/lessees: 2006 amendments apply to post-2006 claims. | The 2006 ODMA governs claims filed after June 30, 2006. |
| Did the surface owners comply with R.C. 5301.56(E) notice/affidavit requirements necessary to vest minerals? | Albanese/Lipperman: prior saving events (1981 affidavit; 1989 will filing) under 1989 ODMA extinguished severed interests. | Batmans: under 2006 ODMA surface owners must serve notice and file affidavit before vesting; plaintiffs did not comply. | Plaintiffs did not comply with the mandatory notice/affidavit duties under the 2006 ODMA; mineral interests remain with Batmans. |
| Are the energy-company defendants entitled to participate/defend despite plaintiffs’ standing challenge? | Lipperman: certain defendants (XTO, Phillips, Reserve, Equity) lack standing to appear because they allegedly released interests or had no claims asserted against them. | Defendants: being named defendants permits defense; standing doctrine does not bar defendants from appearing. | Court: standing doctrine irrelevant to defendants’ participation; Lipperman’s standing argument improperly raised and inadequately preserved; defendants may appear and defend. |
| Were saving events (e.g., recording of affidavit, filing of will) dispositive under the applicable ODMA? | Plaintiffs: those events establish preservation of Batmans’ rights under 1989 ODMA. | Defendants: even if saving events occurred, 2006 notice/affidavit prerequisites control vesting for claims post-2006. | Because 2006 ODMA applies and plaintiffs failed to give required notice/file affidavit, vesting never occurred; Batmans’ interests preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Shondrick-Nau, 34 N.E.3d 131 (Ohio 2015) (court addressed interpretation of ODMA look-back period)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 21 N.E.3d 1040 (Ohio 2014) (standing requires concrete injury fairly traceable to defendant and redressable)
- Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 979 N.E.2d 1214 (Ohio 2012) (standing is necessary to invoke trial-court jurisdiction)
- Moore v. Middletown, 975 N.E.2d 977 (Ohio 2012) (elements required to establish standing)
- Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 875 N.E.2d 550 (Ohio 2007) (discussion of standing principles and party rights)