Bates v. Bates
2022 Ohio 1055
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- 1934–35: Mary quit-claimed land to Howard; Howard died intestate in 1935. Under intestacy Anna (wife) received 1/3; each child a 1/9 share.
- 1971 deed: Anna and her children (collectively owning 7/9) conveyed to Byron and Donah but the deed expressly (1) reserved Anna a life estate in the premises and (2) “RESERVING, further, … the one half interest in the oil and gas … together with the right to lease and dispose of the same … and the right to receive and keep … the royalties.”
- Anna died in 2001. Byron’s line later conveyed to appellants Jeffrey & Melanie Bates; appellants filed Dormant Mineral Act affidavits of abandonment in 2014. Martha (an aunt) filed a timely claim to preserve mineral interest the same month.
- 2019: Howard and Rita Bates sued to quiet title to a 1/36 mineral interest; appellants counterclaimed asserting they own all minerals (or all but 1/6) and raised estoppel-by-deed and latent ambiguity arguments.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Howard et al., holding the 1971 reservation unambiguous: Anna reserved a one‑half mineral interest (not merely a life estate), that interest passed to her heirs, appellants’ abandonment affidavits were ineffective because a timely claim-to-preserve was filed, and estoppel‑by‑deed did not defeat the heirs’ reserved interest. The court’s ruling was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Howard) | Defendant's Argument (Jeffrey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1971 deed’s oil-and-gas clause is ambiguous | Deed language is clear and unambiguous; it reserves a one‑half mineral interest to Anna (not a life estate) | Clause is ambiguous: (a) reads with prior clauses so reserved interest terminated at Anna’s death (life estate), or (b) latent ambiguity — Anna owned only 1/3 so she could reserve only 1/6 | Deed is unambiguous; reservation expressly grants a one‑half mineral interest (fee interest/right to lease/dispose) to Anna that passed to her heirs; not limited to a life estate. |
| Whether a collective reservation by multiple grantors may vest a larger fractional reservation in one grantor than that grantor individually owned | Multiple grantors who together owned 7/9 could validly create a new, collective reservation in favor of Anna amounting to one‑half of the minerals | A grantor cannot reserve more than she owns; thus Anna could not reserve 1/2 when she individually owned 1/3 — the reservation must be read as 1/6 (latent ambiguity) | Court held Ohio law permits multiple grantors to create a new, collective reservation; the clear phrase “one half interest” must be enforced — court will not rewrite the deed to read “one half of one‑third.” |
| Whether Dormant Mineral Act affidavits of abandonment by appellants divested the reserved interest | Plaintiffs: a timely claim‑to‑preserve (filed by Martha) prevented abandonment under R.C. 5301.56 | Defendants: their affidavits of abandonment under the Dormant Mineral Act should have extinguished others’ mineral interests | Claim‑to‑preserve was timely and sufficient; appellants’ abandonment affidavits were ineffective — minerals were not abandoned. |
| Whether estoppel‑by‑deed (after‑acquired title) precludes Anna’s daughters or their heirs from claiming the reserved mineral interest | Plaintiffs: the reservation in the deed binds grantees and the reservation passed to heirs; grantees are estopped from denying the reservation | Defendants: daughters who conveyed without reservation are estopped to reclaim after Anna’s death; appellees cannot later assert title | Estoppel‑by‑deed does not defeat the expressly reserved one‑half mineral interest in favor of Anna and her heirs; reservation controls and heirs may claim their shares. |
Key Cases Cited
- Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Browning‑Ferris Indust. of Ohio, 15 Ohio St.3d 321 (1984) (if contract language is clear and unambiguous, interpretation is a question of law).
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241 (1978) (courts may not rewrite clear written instruments to supply unexpressed intentions).
- Illinois Controls, Inc. v. Langham, 70 Ohio St.3d 512 (1994) (where a written instrument is ambiguous, parol evidence may be used to ascertain intent).
- Skivolocki v. East Ohio Gas Co., 38 Ohio St.2d 244 (1974) (written instruments are construed to carry out parties’ intent as expressed in the writing).
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (2005) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo).
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party’s burden in summary‑judgment practice and shifting burden to nonmoving party).
- Hartman v. Potter, 596 P.2d 653 (Utah 1979) (over‑reservation by grantor who previously conveyed a portion of minerals held to except a fractional part of the remaining interest; discussed on latent‑ambiguity/reservation limits).
- Nichols v. Goughnour, 820 N.W.2d 740 (N.D. 2012) (a single deed conveying multiple grantors’ interests can create a reservation in favor of one grantee that did not exist in each grantor individually).