M&H Partnership v. Hines, 2017 Ohio 923

Surface owners (M&H Partnership and the Ledgers) published an April 9, 2011 notice alleging abandonment of severed oil & gas rights under Ohio's Dormant Mineral Act (R.C. 5301.56).
Within 60 days, the Hines heirs recorded an "Affidavit Preserving Minerals" asserting they were the current owners and did not intend to abandon the mineral interest.
The Hines heirs later leased the minerals to Chesapeake Exploration, LLC on October 31, 2011.
Plaintiffs sued (June 5, 2012) seeking quiet title and a declaration that the mineral rights were deemed abandoned prior to the Chesapeake lease; defendants counterclaimed.
Trial court granted summary judgment for the Hines heirs, concluding the 2006 version of the Dormant Mineral Act applied and the heirs had validly preserved their interest; appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which version of R.C. 5301.56 governs (1989 v. 2006)?	1989 Act should control / 2006 amendment improperly divests surface owners.	2006 Act applies to all claims after June 30, 2006.	2006 Act controls; 1989-based arguments are moot.
Were the Hines heirs the successors-in-interest (standing)?	Heirs lacked title; actual holder was the Eleanor S. Hines Family Trust.	Heirs derived title from original record holders and probate certificates show transfer to heirs.	Heirs are holders/successors and had standing; probate certificates presumed regular.
Did the recorded affidavit preserve the severed mineral interest under R.C. 5301.56(H)?	The affidavit failed because it did not specify any statutory "savings event" in the 20 years before notice.	A recorded claim to preserve under R.C. 5301.56(H)(1)(a) need not identify a savings event; filing within 60 days suffices.	The affidavit constituted a valid claim to preserve under the 2006 Act (Dodd controlling).
Whether the probate-court certificates could be considered on summary judgment	Plaintiffs argued late submission and inconsistencies made them inadmissible/invalid.	Defendants relied on certificates and successor proofs; trial court considered them after parties argued at hearing.	Certificates could be considered; plaintiffs waived timely objection and did not properly attack them in probate court.

Dodd v. Croskey, 143 Ohio St.3d 293 (2015) (Ohio Supreme Court: a recorded claim to preserve under R.C. 5301.56(H)(1)(a) is effective even if no savings event occurred in the prior 20 years)
In re Estate of Dinsio, 159 Ohio App.3d 98 (2004) (certificate of transfer permits transfer of title; collateral attack on probate proceedings is generally improper)
Wolfrum v. Wolfrum, 2 Ohio St.2d 237 (1965) (probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over administration and matters pertaining to an estate)