Darrah v. Baumberger
2017 Ohio 8025
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Surface owners Glenn and Kathie Darrah (and co-plaintiffs) own the surface estate of a Monroe County parcel; a 1908 deed from William and Elizabeth Kindelberger reserved “one half of the oil and gas” under the property (the Mineral Interest).
- The mineral interest passed by quitclaim in 1936 to the Caldwells; appellants are heirs of Dorothy Caldwell and claim an undivided 1/4 mineral interest.
- Appellees served notice of abandonment under the Dormant Mineral Act (ODMA) in Dec. 2013, published notice Dec. 19, 2013, and filed an affidavit of abandonment in Feb. 2014 asserting abandonment under the earlier (1989) ODMA.
- Appellants filed a Claim to Preserve on Jan. 9, 2014 (within 60 days of publication). Parties cross‑moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment to appellees relying on the 1989 ODMA as self‑executing.
- On appeal, the Seventh District reversed: under Ohio Supreme Court precedent the 2006 ODMA controls and appellants’ timely claim to preserve under R.C. 5301.56(H) prevents abandonment; the case is remanded to decide whether the 1908 language created an exception or a reservation (i.e., whether words of inheritance were required).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which version of the ODMA applies (1989 self‑executing vs. 2006 statutory scheme)? | Darrah: 1989 ODMA operated to vest mineral rights in surface owner (court relied on this). | Baumberger: Corban and later Ohio Supreme Court authority require application of the 2006 ODMA to post‑2006 claims. | 2006 ODMA controls; 1989 ODMA not self‑executing per Corban. Grant of summary judgment based on 1989 ODMA reversed. |
| Did appellants’ Claim to Preserve prevent abandonment after notice? | Darrah: Appellees argued different saving‑event provisions apply and that a post‑notice claim may not suffice under some provisions. | Baumberger: Timely filed Claim to Preserve (within 60 days of publication) satisfies R.C. 5301.56(H) per Dodd and halts abandonment. | Held for defendants: timely claim to preserve under R.C. 5301.56(H) prevents abandonment; appellants preserved their interest. |
| Can this court reject or declare Corban unconstitutional? | Darrah: Argued Corban unlawfully stripped vested property rights and is unconstitutional. | Baumberger: Relies on Corban as controlling precedent. | Court declined to declare Corban unconstitutional; as an intermediate appellate court it is bound by Ohio Supreme Court decisions. |
| Nature of 1908 deed language — exception vs. reservation (effect on words of inheritance requirement)? | Darrah: The deed lacked words of inheritance; thus appellees claim only a life estate was reserved and mineral interest expired with Kindelbergers. | Baumberger: The deed “excepted and reserved” oil and gas; if it is an exception, words of inheritance are not required. | Issue undecided on summary judgment; case remanded for trial court to determine whether the 1908 language created an exception or a reservation and proceed under the 2006 ODMA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corban v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C., 76 N.E.3d 1089 (Ohio 2016) (1989 ODMA not self‑executing; 2006 ODMA procedures govern claims asserted after 2006)
- Dodd v. Croskey, 37 N.E.3d 147 (Ohio 2015) (a properly filed claim to preserve under R.C. 5301.56(H)(1)(a) within 60 days of notice preserves the mineral interest)
- Walker v. Shondrick‑Nau, 74 N.E.3d 427 (Ohio 2016) (reiterating that the 2006 ODMA applies to post‑2006 claims)