Hutchens v. Graham
2017 Ohio 7829
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dispute over ownership of oil and gas mineral rights under 30.2 acres in Guernsey County, Ohio; chain of title shows multiple express mineral reservations dating to 1927–1934.
- Charles and Martha Hutchens obtained 44 acres in 1983 (surface only; prior mineral reservations retained). Martha later sold portions and deeds in 1991 and 1998 with mixed reservation language; she did not actually hold the mineral rights.
- Appellees (Grahams and successors) published notice and executed the abandonment procedure under the 2006 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (ODMA) in 2012, then recorded an affidavit of abandonment and leased the minerals.
- Appellants (Hutchens heirs) sued in 2015 seeking declaratory relief and quiet title under the 1989 ODMA, claiming minerals had reverted to the surface owner. Default judgments were entered against some nominal defendants; an Agreed Order quieted title as to those defendants but did not resolve ownership between Hutchens and Appellees.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees after Ohio Supreme Court decisions clarified the 2006 ODMA controls; court quieted title to Appellees as fee simple owners of the mineral estate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellees complied with 2006 ODMA notice/abandonment requirements | Hutchens: Appellees failed to serve required notice to holders (Appellants) and thus could not abandon; minerals reverted to surface under earlier law | Grahams: They followed 2006 ODMA procedures; Appellants were not mineral holders so no service required | Court: 2006 ODMA governs; Appellees complied with R.C. 5301.56(E); title quieted to Appellees |
| Effect of November 5, 2015 Agreed Order against defaulting defendants | Hutchens: Agreed Order quieted title against the defaulting defendants in favor of Hutchens | Grahams: Agreed Order only dismissed/quieted claims as to defaulting defendants, but did not resolve competing ownership between Hutchens and Grahams | Court: Agreed Order quieted title only as to Buerhaus and West; did not decide ownership between the parties; Civ.R. 54(B) language did not make it final as to Hutchens vs. Grahams |
Key Cases Cited
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (summary judgment review standard)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party burden in summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (reciprocal burdens under Civ.R. 56)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Civ.R. 56 standard elements)
- Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 44 Ohio St.3d 86 (final appealable order requirements)
- Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92 (insufficiency of mere Civ.R. 54(B) language to create final order)