Miller v. Hutson
2017 Ohio 5783
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Appellee Carol Miller owns 79.787 acres in Carroll County; a 1934 deed from John and Elizabeth Hutson reserved oil and gas under ~70 acres. Title to the surface passed through several conveyances to Miller by 1992.
- The Hutsons’ reserved mineral interests passed by inheritance to multiple family members (Miriam Hutson, Christine Hutson Trust, Shirley Hutson, Mary Jean Hutson, Linda Adams). Mark Hutson is a descendant.
- Appellants recorded Affidavits to Preserve Mineral Interest in 2012 and 2013; Miller recorded an affidavit in December 2012 asserting ownership under the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (ODMA).
- Miller sued in 2013 seeking declaratory judgment and to quiet title, claiming the 1989 ODMA caused abandonment and vesting of the minerals in the surface owner as of March 22, 1992. Appellants countered that the 2006 ODMA governs and their affidavits preserved the interests.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Miller, concluding the 1989 ODMA was self-executing and divested appellants; the court held the minerals vested in Miller on March 22, 1992.
- On appeal, the Seventh District reversed, concluding the 1989 ODMA does not apply to this post-2006 claim and entered summary judgment for appellants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1989 ODMA automatically divested appellants of mineral rights (self-executing) | Miller: 1989 ODMA caused automatic abandonment and vesting in surface owner on March 22, 1992 | Appellants: 1989 ODMA was repealed/amended by 2006 ODMA; 2006 ODMA governs claims filed after 2006 and requires notice/recording procedures | Court: 1989 ODMA is not self-executing; 2006 ODMA procedures apply to claims asserted after 2006; trial court erred to apply 1989 ODMA; reversed in favor of appellants |
| Proper measurement of the 20-year dormancy look-back period under the 1989 ODMA | Miller: look-back began from the 1989 statute’s effective date (supporting 1992 vesting) | Appellants: trial court misapplied the look-back; 1989 ODMA does not control this post-2006 claim | Court: Issue rendered moot because 1989 ODMA does not apply to this case; no vesting under 1989 statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (2005) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden; then nonmoving party must show genuine issue)
- Welco Indus., Inc. v. Applied Cos., 67 Ohio St.3d 344 (1993) (trial courts should exercise caution and resolve doubts for nonmoving party when awarding summary judgment)