Blackstone v. Moore
2017 Ohio 8159
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1915 Nick and Flora Kuhn reserved a one-half oil-and-gas royalty interest in 60 acres; that reservation was recited in subsequent deeds in the chain of title.
- David Blackstone acquired the property in 1969; he attempted (unsuccessfully) to purchase the Kuhn heirs’ royalty interest in the late 1970s.
- The Blackstones recorded an affidavit of abandonment under the Dormant Mineral Act and sued in 2012 to extinguish purported mineral interests; the Kuhn heirs (Appellants) filed a claim to preserve their interests.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Blackstones, finding extinguishment under both the Dormant Mineral Act and the Marketable Title Act (MTA).
- On appeal this Court reversed as to both statutes, holding Appellants preserved their interests; the Blackstones filed a motion for reconsideration focused solely on the MTA issue.
- The appellate court denied reconsideration, concluding the deed references were sufficiently specific under R.C. 5301.49(A) and rejecting arguments that the decision conflicted with precedent or frustrated the MTA’s purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellants’ mineral/royalty interests were extinguished under the Marketable Title Act because later deeds lacked a sufficiently specific reference to the reserving instrument | Blackstone: reference in later deeds was insufficiently specific (no volume/page, outside root of title), so MTA extinguishes the interest | Kuhn heirs/Appellants: reservation was specifically referenced in the chain of title; statutes do not require volume/page; interests survive MTA | The court held the references were sufficiently specific under R.C. 5301.49(A); interests not extinguished by MTA |
| Whether appellate reliance on Toth and other precedents required reversal or was erroneous | Blackstone: court misstated or misapplied Toth and other cases; those cases support requirement of more particularized references | Appellants/court: Toth and other cited cases do not impose a volume/page requirement; Patton factors support specificity here | Court found no error in relying on Toth and related precedent and explained those authorities do not impose the narrow rule urged by Blackstone |
| Whether the motion for reconsideration presented grounds (obvious error or unconsidered issue) to alter the opinion | Blackstone: decision conflicts with MTA’s simplification purpose and imposes practical title-search burdens | Court: arguments were raised for first time or merely disagree with analysis; record shows Blackstones knew of the reservation and could locate the Kuhn deed | Motion for reconsideration denied — no obvious error or unconsidered controlling issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Toth v. Berks Title Ins. Co., 6 Ohio St.3d 338, 453 N.E.2d 639 (Ohio 1983) (Ohio Supreme Court reviewed sufficiency of later-deed references to prior interest)
- Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68, 523 N.E.2d 515 (10th Dist. 1987) (standard for motions for reconsideration: must show obvious error or previously unconsidered issue)