Haas v. Chesapeake
2017 Ohio 5702
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- The dispute concerns ownership of severed mineral interests beneath ~140 acres in Carrollton originally reserved by the Saxtons in 1865; a separate tax parcel for the minerals was created in 1913.
- Surface title passed to David L. Haas (Appellant) in 1970; various mineral transfers occurred (Belden estate → J.R. Operating → Marbel entities) with preservation affidavits filed in 1976 and 1996.
- Haas filed suit in 2012 asserting DMA and MTA claims after Chesapeake released an earlier lease and later leased to Marbel; case was briefly in federal court and then remanded to state court.
- Marbel and Chesapeake moved for summary judgment arguing Haas failed to comply with notice requirements of the 2006 Dormant Mineral Act (ODMA) and that the mineral interests were preserved by recorded transactions/affidavits.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on the DMA claim (finding Haas did not comply with the 2006 ODMA) but left MTA-related claims for further proceedings; this appeal challenges the DMA ruling and the court’s treatment of Haas’s affidavit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which version of Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (1989 vs 2006) governs Haas's claim | Haas contends the 1989 DMA should apply and would have resulted in reunification of surface and minerals | Defendants assert the 2006 ODMA governs and Haas failed to comply with its notice/recording requirements; alternatively their title was preserved by filings and transfers | 2006 ODMA applies (per Corban and Albanese); trial court correctly applied 2006 statute |
| Compliance with 2006 ODMA notice requirement | Haas argues his submissions suffice (or that 1989 should apply) | Defendants point to undisputed failure by Haas to serve certified‐mail notice under R.C. 5301.56(E) | Haas did not comply with R.C. 5301.56(E); summary judgment for defendants on DMA claim |
| Adequacy/personal knowledge of Haas's affidavit under Civ.R. 56(E) | Haas contends the court improperly disregarded portions of his affidavit and he stated bases for knowledge | Defendants argue the court reasonably excluded averments lacking foundation and the issue is moot given ODMA noncompliance | Court did not abuse discretion; some averments lacked personal-knowledge foundation and issue is moot re: DMA ruling |
| Effect of Marketable Title Act (MTA) on defendants' title | Haas contends MTA may extinguish defendants' claims | Defendants contend their interests were preserved and MTA issues were not properly before the court on summary judgment | MTA issues were not decided at summary judgment and remain pending; matter remanded for trial-court consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Albanese v. Batman, 148 Ohio St.3d 85 (2016) (explains notice/recording requirements under the 2006 ODMA for vesting severed minerals in surface owner)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (describes burdens of proof for summary-judgment movant and nonmovant)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (sets forth Civ.R. 56 standard and viewing evidence in favor of nonmoving party)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (confirms de novo appellate review of summary-judgment rulings)