Dodd v. Croskey
2013 Ohio 4257
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Aug. 2009: appellants acquired 127.8387 acres in Harrison County with deeds reserving oil and gas to Samuel A. Porter and Blanche Long Porter; surface conveyed subject to reservations.
- Nov. 27, 2010: appellants published a notice of intent to claim abandonment of oil and gas interests underlying the property addressed to Porter entities.
- Dec. 29, 2010: Croskey filed an Affidavit Preserving Minerals asserting he is an heir of the Porters and naming other purported heirs.
- Feb. 9, 2011: appellants filed suit to quiet title seeking abandonment of mineral interests under the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for appellees and denied appellants’ summary judgment; court held mineral interests not abandoned and preserved by Croskey’s affidavit.
- On appeal, the Seventh District affirms in part and reverses in part, concluding preservation by affidavit authorized, but the 2009 deed was not a title transaction; notice defects were harmless because at least one appellee received notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2009 deed was a title transaction under R.C. 5301.56(B)(3)(a). | Dodd contends the 2009 deed reserved oil and gas; sale of surface rights with minerals reserved means mineral interest was subject of title transaction. | Croskey and others argue the deed’s language constitutes the subject of a title transaction. | No; 2009 deed was not the subject of a title transaction. |
| Whether notice to the mineral holders satisfied R.C. 5301.56(E)/(F). | Publish notice alone should not suffice; certified mail attempts were not made. | Published notice reached at least one holder who preserved the mineral interest; lack of certified mail is harmless. | Harmless error; published notice sufficed to satisfy notice when at least one holder acted. |
| Whether Croskey’s Affidavit Preserving Minerals constitutes a savings event under R.C. 5301.56(H). | The affidavit did not identify an event under (B)(3) and thus cannot preserve; failure to meet the 20-year requirement should bar preservation. | The affidavit was treated as a claim to preserve under (H)(1)(a); it preserved rights regardless of the 20-year window. | Croskey’s filing, viewed as a claim to preserve, preserved mineral interests under (H)(1)(a). |
| Whether appellees had to prove ownership of the mineral interests to defeat abandonment. | Appellants argue lack of proof of ownership should defeat preservation. | Affidavit suffices to establish holders; appellants did not rebut with evidence. | Appellees’ ownership shown by the Croskey affidavit; no contrary evidence presented. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Tracy, 75 Ohio St.3d 125 (1996) (statutory interpretation; unambiguous language rules)
- State ex rel. Falke v. Montgomery Cnty. Residential Dev., Inc., 40 Ohio St.3d 71 (1988) (forfeiture and preservation principles in abandonment statutes)
- Ohio Dep’t of Liquor Control v. Sons of Italy Lodge 0917, 65 Ohio St.3d 532 (1992) (forfeiture/forbearance in transfer of property rights)
- Smith v. Landfair, 135 Ohio St.3d 89 (2012) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning governs)