Farnsworth v. Burkhart
21 N.E.3d 577
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- 1980 deed severed Veronica Burkhart's minerals with reservation; 1988 conveyed surface to Farnsworths, repeating mineral reservation; Veronica’s heirs inherited minerals upon her death; heirs did not obtain certificate of transfer until Feb. 2012; Farnsworths served 2012 notice of abandonment on heirs under 2006 DMA; 2012 timely claim to preserve filed by mineral holders; trial court granted summary judgment for surface owners based on 1989 DMA and 2006 DMA; appellate court reverses, holding 1989 DMA applies with fixed look-back and 2006 DMA preservation controls, so minerals were not abandoned
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1989 DMA can still apply after 2006 amendments | Holders argue 1989 DMA is repealed or superseded | Owners argue 1989 DMA remains self-executing and governs already-vested rights | 1989 DMA can apply; fixed look-back governs here |
| Whether a surface-transfer reference to a prior severance is a savings event | Holders contend surface transfer is a savings event | Dodd holds reference to prior severance is not a savings event | Not a savings event (Dodd controls) |
| Whether abandonment occurred under 2006 DMA after notice and preservation claim | Dodd holds timely preserve prevents abandonment | Surface owners contend abandonment occurs absent savings events | Dodd precludes abandonment; preservation claim prevents abandonment under 2006 DMA |
| Whether constitutional challenge to 1989 DMA was raised and preserved | Claim of unconstitutional taking without notice | TexasTexaco-like issues not argued below | Constitutionality waived; not addressed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Shondrick-Nau, 2014-Ohio-1499 (7th Dist. No. 13NO402 (Apr. 3, 2014)) (reaffirmed that 1989 DMA can apply to pre-2006 disputes; look-back and vesting analysis)
- Dodd v. Croskey, 2013-Ohio-4257 (7th Dist. No. 12HA6) (holding that a surface transfer referencing a prior reservation is not a savings event)
- Swartz v. Householder, 2014-Ohio-2359 (7th Dist. Nos. 13JE24, 13JE25) (further discussion on 1989 vs 2006 DMA interpretations)
- Eisenbarth v. Reusser, 2014-Ohio-3792 (7th Dist. No. 13MO10) (advocates 2006 DMA controls; critique of 1989 DMA as self-executing)
- Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516 (1982) (Texas Indiana-like self-executing abandonment; federal perspective cited)
- LaSalle, 96 Ohio St.3d 178 (2002) (controlling which version governs when expungement application filed)