2017 Ohio 9222
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- McAuley owns a tract acquired in 1998 that is subject to two historical mineral conveyances: (1) a 1874 deed conveying mineral rights to George Rice, and (2) a 1937 deed in which Isaac W. Atkinson conveyed surface to his wife Cora but reserved the remaining mineral interest.
- Isaac died intestate in 1959; Cora inherited Isaac’s reserved mineral interest and then died in 1960. Cora’s 1961 executor’s deed to purchasers (McAuley’s predecessors) contained a reservation clause referencing both the 1874 Rice deed and the 1937 Atkinson-to-Cora deed.
- McAuley attempted to declare the Atkinson minerals abandoned under the 2006 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (ODMA): she published a notice of abandonment in Oct. 2013 and filed an affidavit; defendants filed a notice of preservation on Dec. 20, 2013.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding (1) the 1961 deed reserved the Atkinson mineral interest and (2) the defendants timely preserved their interest under the ODMA.
- McAuley appealed, raising (A) whether the 1961 reservation retained Cora/Atkinson minerals or conveyed them to the purchaser, and (B) whether a preservation filing under R.C. 5301.56(H) can be defeated by the conclusive presumption of abandonment in R.C. 5301.56(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1961 deed reserved Cora/Atkinson mineral interest or conveyed it with the surface | McAuley: Clause only references the singular Rice interest (via "the interest") and thus did not reserve Cora's Atkinson minerals; merger of estates meant separate reservation was required | Defendants: Clause reserves the entire mineral estate and then identifies two components (Rice minerals and Atkinson minerals); 1961 deed mirrors 1937 reservation language, showing intent to reserve Atkinson minerals | Court: Reservation clause is unambiguous; it excludes minerals from the 1961 conveyance and reserves the Atkinson mineral interest (summary judgment for defendants) |
| Whether a timely claim to preserve under R.C. 5301.56(H) can be overcome by a conclusive presumption of abandonment under R.C. 5301.56(B) | McAuley: Filing a claim to preserve under (H) is not an occurrence that prevents the conclusive presumption in (B) | Defendants: Timely filing under (H) (within 60 days of published notice) stops the abandonment process per ODMA; Dodd and subsequent decisions control | Court: Defendant preservation filing (Dec. 20, 2013, within 60 days of Oct. 28 notice) prevented abandonment; plaintiff's statutory argument rejected (summary judgment for defendants) |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (discussing de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Dodd v. Croskey, 143 Ohio St.3d 293 (interpretation of ODMA preservation and abandonment interplay)
- Farnsworth v. Burkhart, 150 Ohio St.3d 345 (Ohio Supreme Court denial of reconsideration relevant to preservation under ODMA)
- Long Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574 (written instrument construction as a matter of law)
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line, 53 Ohio St.2d 241 (plain-meaning rule for clear, unambiguous written instruments)