2019 Ohio 504
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Surface owners (Appellants) hold ~69.38 acres; oil & gas rights were reserved in a 1947 Mellott deed retained by Appellees.
- Appellants recorded a notice/affidavit of abandonment in 2012 (published notice) and again attempted notice in 2017 (included within their complaint), seeking to vest the minerals in the surface estate under the Dormant Mineral Act (DMA) and alternatively claiming extinguishment under the Marketable Title Act (MTA), adverse possession, and quiet title.
- Appellants identified a 1959 deed as their “root of title,” but that deed repeated an exception reserving oil and gas.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Appellees, ruling Appellants failed to comply with DMA notice requirements (no certified-mail attempt before publication; the complaint did not constitute the required statutory notice), and struck the recorded affidavits of abandonment.
- On appeal, this court affirmed: it held the DMA procedures controlled severed mineral claims, rejected Appellants’ DMA and adverse-possession theories, and—although the trial court erred by declining to consider the MTA—found the purported root of title contained an oil-and-gas exception so the MTA could not extinguish the mineral interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mineral interest extinguished under Marketable Title Act (MTA) | The 1959 root of title did not specifically reference the 1947 Mellott mineral reservation, so MTA extinguished the mineral interest | The chain of title (including root deed) repeats an oil-and-gas exception/reservation, so MTA does not extinguish the interest | MTA inapplicable because the purported root of title repeated the oil-and-gas reservation, preventing extinguishment under MTA |
| Whether DMA abandonment procedures were followed (2012 attempt) | Publication of notice sufficed to declare abandonment | Statute requires attempt at certified-mail service before resorting to publication; no evidence of due diligence or certified-mail attempt | 2012 claim failed: no evidence certified-mail attempt/due diligence prior to publication as required by R.C. 5301.56(E) |
| Whether DMA notice in 2017 (included in complaint) satisfied statutory notice | Including a Notice of Abandonment within the complaint satisfied R.C. 5301.56(E) notice requirements | The statutory notice must be separately given as prescribed; embedding it in a complaint is insufficient and confusing as to service/response rights | 2017 claim failed: notice embedded in complaint did not meet statutory notice procedure |
| Whether adverse possession can vest severed mineral rights in surface owner | Surface owner argues minerals were abandoned/possessed by surface owners and could be acquired | Defendants assert adverse-possession requires actual, open, notorious, continuous, and hostile possession (productive use) over 21 years; no extraction or development occurred | Adverse-possession claim failed: Appellants did not show actual possession/development of minerals necessary to acquire severed mineral rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (summary judgment burden and standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment—genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Toth v. Berks Title Ins. Co., 6 Ohio St.3d 338, 453 N.E.2d 639 (MTA—interests inherent in muniments survive)
- Gill v. Fletcher, 74 Ohio St. 295, 78 N.E. 433 (severed minerals and adverse possession—productive use required)
- Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St.3d 577, 692 N.E.2d 1009 (elements and clear-and-convincing proof required for adverse possession)