Dodd v. Croskey
143 Ohio St. 3d 293
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Appellants (Dodd and Bologna) bought surface rights in 2009; the deed expressly reserved some oil and gas/mineral rights. After an oil/gas company inquired, the surface owners published a Dormant Mineral Act notice (Nov. 27, 2010) seeking to declare the mineral interests abandoned.
- Two days after publication, John William Croskey recorded a quitclaim and on Dec. 23, 2010 filed an "Affidavit Preserving Minerals" listing identified mineral owners who intended to preserve their interests.
- Appellants sued to quiet title and moved for summary judgment, arguing Croskey’s post-notice affidavit could not prevent abandonment because it was not a saving event occurring within the 20-year lookback period specified by R.C. 5301.56(B)(3).
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the mineral holders; the Seventh District affirmed, holding Croskey’s affidavit complied with the claim-to-preserve requirements of R.C. 5301.56(H)(1)(a).
- The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted discretionary review and, resolving whether a post-notice claim to preserve suffices to prevent abandonment, affirmed the court of appeals: a claim to preserve filed within 60 days after notice precludes abandonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a mineral holder’s claim to preserve filed after the surface owner’s notice (but not within the 20-year lookback) can prevent abandonment under the Dormant Mineral Act | Appellants: claim-to-preserve must show a saving event within the 20 years before notice; a post-notice claim cannot preclude abandonment | Mineral holders: statute allows either (a) a claim to preserve filed within 60 days after notice or (b) an affidavit showing a saving event within the 20-year window; either suffices to avoid abandonment | Held: A claim to preserve filed within 60 days after notice under R.C. 5301.56(H)(1)(a) is sufficient to preclude abandonment; the 20-year lookback applies to alternative affidavits identifying saving events, not to claims-to-preserve |
Key Cases Cited
- Henry v. Central Natl. Bank, 16 Ohio St.2d 16 (1968) (statutory interpretation focuses on legislative intent)
- Boley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 510 (2010) (apply unambiguous statute as written; avoid adding or deleting words)
- Armstrong v. John R. Jurgensen Co., 136 Ohio St.3d 58 (2013) (same principle on statute application)
- Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Cleveland, 37 Ohio St.3d 50 (1988) (court must give effect to words chosen by the legislature)