Christy v. Haselberger
2017 Ohio 4360
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1946 Nova and Dollie Christman conveyed surface rights but expressly reserved all oil, gas and mineral rights (including leasing and right to enter).
- In 1989 the Christmans leased oil and gas rights down to 4,000 feet (shallow rights) and expressly reserved rights below 4,000 feet (deep rights) in the Christman-Gadd Lease.
- Gregory and Carol Christy purchased the surface property in 1994. In 2013 the Christies recorded an affidavit of abandonment and sued to quiet title, claiming the deep rights (below 4,000 feet) had been abandoned and vested in them under the Dormant Mineral Act (DMA).
- The Haselberger defendants (heirs of the Christmans) counterclaimed to quiet title in their favor and argued multiple title transactions during the relevant period were savings events preventing abandonment; they also contended the 2006 DMA applied.
- The trial court applied the 1989 DMA, found one savings event (the 1989 Christman-Gadd Lease) within the 20-year lookback and granted summary judgment to the Haselberger defendants.
- On appeal the Seventh District affirmed but on different reasoning: the 2006 DMA governs claims filed after 2006, and the Christies failed to follow the 2006 statute’s notice/recording procedures, so they cannot prevail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1989 ODMA automatically vested dormant mineral interests in surface owner | Christy: 1989 ODMA was self-executing; deep rights abandoned and vested in surface owner absent savings events | Haselberger: 1989 ODMA not controlling; savings events occurred; 2006 ODMA applies | Court: 1989 ODMA is not self-executing per Corban; 2006 ODMA governs claims filed after 2006, so Christies cannot prevail |
| Which DMA version applies | Christy: relied on 1989 ODMA vesting rules | Haselberger: 2006 ODMA applies to claims filed after 2006; they preserved defenses under 2006 Act | Court: 2006 ODMA applies to this 2013 claim; procedures in 2006 Act required and not followed by Christies |
| Whether title transactions during lookback were savings events | Christy: no savings events during the relevant period for deep rights | Haselberger: multiple (alleged 18) title transactions are savings events preserving their interest | Court below found at least the 1989 Christman-Gadd Lease was a savings event; appellate court affirms judgment for Haselbergers though on 2006 DMA grounds |
| Whether trial court’s erroneous statutory reasoning requires reversal | Christy: contends trial court erred applying 1989 DMA and granting summary judgment to defendants | Haselberger: urges affirmance on any proper ground | Court: appellate court may affirm for different correct reasons; judgment affirmed because 2006 DMA rules govern and Christies did not comply |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (summary-judgment standard and de novo review)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56)
- Joyce v. General Motors Corp., 49 Ohio St.3d 93 (appellate court may affirm correct judgment for different reasons)
- Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied Cos., 67 Ohio St.3d 344 (resolve doubts in favor of nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Cordray v. International Preparatory School, 128 Ohio St.3d 50 (appellate affirmance may rest on grounds different from trial court)