178 A.3d 14
Md.2018Background
- The Dormant Mineral Interests Act (DMIA), En. §§ 15-1201–15-1206 (2010), permits a surface owner to petition a court to terminate a severed mineral interest that has been "unused" for 20+ years and not subject to a recorded notice of intent to preserve.
- Between 1884–1898 Sarah Wright severed mineral interests in Garrett County; present surface owners (respondents) later discovered the severances and filed a Petition for Termination in 2013.
- Many mineral-interest owners (petitioners) had not previously known of their interests; some filed Notices of Intent to Preserve after the termination action began. The parties stipulated the mineral interests had been unused for 40+ years.
- The circuit court found the DMIA constitutional, that respondents conducted diligent inquiry to locate owners, and voided post-filing preservation notices; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and affirmed: DMIA is not retrospective under Maryland law and does not effect an unconstitutional taking; late preservation notices were ineffective given the statutory timeframes and facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DMIA retrospectively abrogates vested property rights in violation of MD Const Art. 24 and Art. III, § 40 | DMIA retrospectively extinguishes mineral owners' vested rights and is therefore more constitutionally suspect under Muskin/Dua | DMIA is forward-acting under Landgraf/John Deere factors: it targets dormant, non- producing interests and provides procedural protections | DMIA is not retrospective under Maryland/ Landgraf analysis; petitioners lacked reasonable reliance/ settled expectations and Article 24/Art. III § 40 do not invalidate the Act |
| Whether DMIA effects an uncompensated taking of property | The Act transfers mineral interests to surface owners without compensation, violating Art. III, § 40 | DMIA targets abandoned/dormant interests, offers defenses and late-preservation remedies, and does not take active/mineral-producing rights | No compensable taking: statute addresses abandoned/dormant rights and affords opportunities to preserve or reimburse surface-owner litigation costs; not a taking |
| Whether post-filing Notices of Intent to Preserve were effective (including notices filed by personal representatives) | Notices filed after commencement nevertheless preserve interests because initial pleadings imperfectly identified certain owners | Respondents: commencement date is filing of initial petition; notices recorded after filing are late and ineffective except under statutorily prescribed late-preservation process | Notices recorded after commencement were untimely; late notices subject to §15-1205 conditions (and barred where interest unused 40+ years); here preservation failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Muskin v. State Dep’t of Assessments & Taxation, 422 Md. 544 (2011) (Maryland analysis of whether registration/extinguishment statute retroactively abrogated vested property rights)
- Dua v. Comcast Cable of Maryland, Inc., 370 Md. 604 (2002) (Maryland precedent that retrospective statutes abrogating vested rights violate Art. 24 and Art. III, § 40)
- John Deere Const. & Forestry Co. v. Reliable Tractor, Inc., 406 Md. 139 (2008) (adopting Landgraf factors for retrospectivity analysis)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (Supreme Court factors for determining retrospective application of statutes)
- Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516 (1982) (upholding an Indiana dormant-minerals statute against due process and takings challenges)
- Harvey v. Sines, 228 Md. App. 283 (2016) (Court of Special Appeals upholding DMIA; persuasive on retrospectivity and preservation issues)
- Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Marburg, 110 Md. 410 (1909) (upholding extinguishment rules for long-dormant ground-rent interests as not a taking)