2018 Ohio 814
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Two Harrison County parcels at issue: a 111.397-acre portion of Section 16 and a 5.61-acre portion of Section 22; earlier deeds split surface and mineral interests with multiple reservations of oil and gas.
- Consolidation (Consol) sold surface rights in 1962, reserving a 1/3 oil-and-gas interest in Section 22; subsequent conveyances culminated in Seleski owning surface and, by his death (1999), purportedly the remaining mineral interests.
- In 2001 the Seleski Estate conveyed interests to purchasers (Wilt deed); later transfers produced Lower Valley as claimant to certain mineral interests.
- On December 23, 2010, Croskey filed a mineral-preserving affidavit under the 2006 Dormant Mineral Act (ODMA).
- Lower Valley sued (2014) under the 1989 ODMA seeking quiet title; the trial court applied the 1989 ODMA and awarded title to Lower Valley (except confirming Lower Valley’s 1/3 interest in Section 22).
- On appeal the Seventh District held Corban requires application of the 2006 ODMA, found the Croskey 2010 affidavit effective to preserve their interests, reversed most of the trial-court judgment, and entered summary judgment for the Croskey defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which Dormant Mineral Act applies (1989 self-executing vs. 2006 procedures)? | 1989 ODMA applied and automatically vested dormant mineral interests in surface owner at Seleski’s death. | Corban requires application of the 2006 ODMA; 1989 was not self-executing. | 2006 ODMA applies; trial court’s use of 1989 reversed. |
| Did Croskey’s Dec. 23, 2010 affidavit preserve their mineral interests? | Lower Valley noted the affidavit but argued other defenses/ambiguities required remand. | The 2010 affidavit complied with 2006 ODMA and preserved the Croskey parties’ mineral rights. | Affidavit satisfied 2006 ODMA (court affirmed earlier Dodd ruling); summary judgment for Croskey defendants. |
| Should the case be remanded for additional factual/deed-ambiguity issues? | Remand needed so trial court can decide deed ambiguities and other defenses. | No remand—deed ambiguities irrelevant because original deeds reserved minerals; affidavit controlling. | No remand; appellate court resolved title in defendants’ favor. |
| Nature/effect of the 1989 ODMA “conclusive presumption” and any constitutional challenge | Lower Valley contended a conclusive presumption vested title and could pass with conveyance; implied challenge to changes. | Corban says the presumption is an evidentiary device (procedural), not a vested property right. | The conclusive presumption is evidentiary only; changing it is procedural; no remand or constitutional barrier to applying 2006 scheme. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corban v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C., 76 N.E.3d 1089 (Ohio 2016) (1989 ODMA not self-executing; 2006 procedures govern dormant-mineral claims)
- Walker v. Shondrick-Nau, 74 N.E.3d 427 (Ohio 2016) (2006 ODMA applies to claims asserted after 2006)
- Dodd v. Croskey, 37 N.E.3d 147 (Ohio 2015) (affidavit filed by Croskey satisfied statutory preservation requirements)
- Comer v. Risko, 833 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio 2005) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 662 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1996) (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden)