Myers v. Bedway Land
2017 Ohio 1257
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Surface owners (Myers et al.) own ~631.04 acres in Harrison County; they sued to quiet title and have severed mineral rights declared abandoned and merged into the surface under the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (ODMA).
- Mineral holders include Bedway Land & Mineral Co., Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, and Eric Petroleum; Bedway purchased mineral rights by deed recorded in 1984 and later leased them to Mason Dixon, then assigned to Chesapeake and Eric Petroleum.
- Plaintiffs filed their quiet-title/abandonment claim in 2012 and relied on the 1989 version of the ODMA; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting the 2006 ODMA and title transactions prevented abandonment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the mineral holders, applying the 1989 ODMA; the surface owners appealed and defendants filed cross-assignments of error.
- The appellate court held that claims filed after the 2006 ODMA effective date must be resolved under the 2006 statute (not the 1989 version), found no compliance with the abandonment procedure, affirmed summary judgment for mineral holders on that basis, but remanded to correct clerical errors in the judgment (including fractional interests and recording citations).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which ODMA version applies to a 2012 abandonment claim? | 1989 ODMA controls; its non-self-executing rules support merger here. | 2006 ODMA applies to claims after its effective date and prescribes notice/filing procedures. | 2006 ODMA governs claims asserted after its effective date. |
| Were the severed mineral rights abandoned and merged into the surface? | Plaintiffs argued abandonment under ODMA (1989 theory). | Defendants relied on title transactions and leases (savings events) under 2006 ODMA to defeat abandonment. | No abandonment: plaintiffs did not comply with 2006 ODMA notice/affidavit requirements; title transactions/leases prevented abandonment. |
| Did certain instruments (quitclaim, lease, auditor parcel assignment) constitute "savings events" under ODMA? | Plaintiffs disputed defendants' characterization of instruments as savings events. | Defendants asserted the 1984 deed/leases and related instruments were title transactions/savings events. | Court found title transactions/leasing activity prevented a 20-year lapse under governing law; factual clerical corrections required but substance supports defendants. |
| Are clerical errors in the trial court judgment material? | Plaintiffs did not contest specific clerical corrections. | Defendants identified incorrect fractional interests and recording citations in the judgment. | Remanded for correction: adjust Bedway's fractional interests on specified parcels and correct recording dates/volume-page references. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Buell, 144 Ohio St.3d 490 (Ohio 2015) (leases qualify as title transactions under the ODMA)
- Albanese v. Batman, 148 Ohio St.3d 85 (Ohio 2016) (under the 2006 ODMA, service of notice and filing of an affidavit are required for abandonment)