2018 Ohio 3733
Oh. Ct. App. 7th Dist. Belmont2018Background
- In 1936 John W. Kirk and Helen S. Kirk reserved one-half of the minerals when they sold the subject parcel. Neither decedent specifically devised or had the mineral interest listed in probate inventories or transferred by certificate of title after death (Helen died 1965; John died 1987).
- Plaintiff (surface owner) published notice of abandonment in March 2013 under the 2006 Dormant Mineral Act (DMA) and filed an affidavit of abandonment in May 2013.
- Within 60 days of publication multiple heirs of the Kirks filed timely claims to preserve the mineral interest in the county recorder’s office, signed by counsel.
- Plaintiff sued to quiet title and sought a declaratory judgment that the minerals were abandoned under the DMA (and extinguished under the Marketable Title Act, MTA); trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiff, holding the post-notice claims to preserve were invalid because there was no recorded evidence that the claimants were successors/assignees of the record holders.
- The Seventh District reversed as to abandonment under the 2006 DMA, holding heirs who inherit the record holder’s mineral interest may file a timely claim to preserve even if the mineral was not specifically listed or transferred in probate records; the case is remanded for further proceedings (including MTA issues not decided below).
Issues
| Issue | Jefferis (Plaintiff) Argument | Kirk heirs (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-notice claims to preserve are valid when filed by heirs who are not recorded as successors/assignees in county land records or by probate certificate | A claimant must show record notice of succession or a recorded title transaction identifying the claimant’s ownership to file a valid claim to preserve; absent recorded transfer, claim invalid | Heirs who inherited the record holder’s mineral interest may file a timely claim to preserve even if probate inventories/certificates did not memorialize the mineral transfer in the recorder’s office | Court held heirs may file a timely claim to preserve as holders or holders’ successors/assignees under the DMA; lack of a recorded probate transfer is not dispositive and does not bar filing |
| Whether a person must be a "record holder" (or have record notice) to be a "holder" entitled to file a claim to preserve under R.C. 5301.56 | "Record notice" is necessary; the statute and case law require an identifiable chain of title in the public record | DMA defines "holder" broadly to include anyone who derives rights from or has a common source with the record holder; no statutory modifier requires public record evidence of succession | Court interpreted the DMA definition of "holder" to include heirs who derived rights from the record holders; statutory text controls and trial court erred in requiring recorded transfer |
| Whether the court should resolve MTA extinguishment on appeal where trial court decided only DMA abandonment | Surface owner relied on recorded chain/root deed and argued MTA extinguishment; plaintiff moved on MTA originally but later withdrew | Heirs argued MTA issues support preservation/extinguishment defenses and asked for summary judgment under MTA | Court declined to decide MTA issues because the trial court did not rule on them; remanded for further proceedings on MTA claims after reversing DMA ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., 149 Ohio St.3d 512, 76 N.E.3d 1089 (Ohio 2016) (explains interaction between DMA and marketable title and holds 1989 DMA not self-executing)
- Dodd v. Croskey, 143 Ohio St.3d 293, 37 N.E.3d 147 (Ohio 2015) (authorizes post-notice claims to preserve and recognizes an heir/assignee may preserve mineral rights)
- Jefferis Real Estate Oil & Gas Holdings, LLC v. Schaffner Law Offices, L.P.A., 86 N.E.3d 966 (7th Dist. 2017) (prior appellate disposition remanding unaddressed 2006 DMA issues)