2017 Ohio 4035
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Ralph and Sharley Greer own three contiguous ~20-acre tracts ("Real Estate") in Belmont County; mineral rights had been severed by prior conveyances from Roy and Goldie Crooks.
- The Crooks reserved oil and gas rights in deeds (including a 1974 warranty deed); appellees purchased the surface estate in 1998.
- Appellees published a Notice of Abandonment on January 27, 2011 asserting the Crooks' severed mineral interests were abandoned; Crooks’ heirs (appellants) filed affidavits to preserve and transfer their claimed interests in March–April 2011.
- Appellants later leased the disputed mineral reservation to Rice Drilling; appellees sued in 2013 seeking a declaratory judgment that the mineral rights vested in the surface owner under the Dormant Mineral Act (ODMA).
- The trial court applied the 1989 ODMA, concluded the 20‑year lookback ran (vested mineral rights in appellees), granted summary judgment to appellees, and rescinded appellants’ lease.
- On appeal, the Seventh District held the 2006 ODMA governs all post‑2006 claims and reversed: because appellants timely filed claims to preserve under the 2006 ODMA, summary judgment was entered for appellants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Greer) | Defendant's Argument (Frye et al.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which version of the ODMA governs this post‑2006 claim? | 1989 ODMA applied (trial court) | 2006 ODMA applies to claims asserted after 2006 | 2006 ODMA governs claims asserted after 2006 |
| Was the 1989 ODMA self‑executing (automatically vested minerals in surface owner)? | Yes—minerals vested by operation of the 1989 statute after 20 years | No—1989 was not self‑executing; claimants still needed a quiet title action per Corban | 1989 ODMA not self‑executing; 2006 procedures control (per Corban) |
| Did appellants timely preserve their mineral interests under the controlling statute? | Appellees: preservation not effective under 1989 analysis | Appellants: they filed an affidavit to preserve within 60 days after notice, satisfying 2006 ODMA requirements | Appellants timely filed to preserve under the 2006 ODMA; preservation halts abandonment |
| Was summary judgment appropriate? | Trial court: yes for appellees under 1989 ODMA | Appellants: summary judgment should be entered for defendants under 2006 ODMA | Court reversed trial court and entered summary judgment for appellants |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (2005) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden)
- Dodd v. Croskey, 143 Ohio St.3d 293 (2015) (timely preservation filings can prevent abandonment under ODMA)
- Welco Indus., Inc. v. Applied Cos., 67 Ohio St.3d 344 (1993) (summary judgment should be granted cautiously; construe evidence for nonmoving party)