Paul v. Hannon
2017 Ohio 1261
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Terri Paul owns the surface of a 70-acre Perry Township parcel and one-half of the mineral (oil & gas) interest; Harriet Lucinda Hannon and the Estate of Doug Hannon own the other one-half. The severance traces to 1944 deeds to R.H. Hannon and a 1989 conveyance (the "Children’s Deed") to his children.
- Paul sent ODMA notice (R.C. 5301.56) in April 2012 claiming appellees’ mineral interest abandoned; appellees filed documents titled "Affidavit to Preserve Mineral Interest" within the statutory period and later recorded memoranda of leases to Chesapeake.
- Paul recorded affidavits of abandonment and requests to mark recorder’s copies; appellees sued for declaratory relief, quiet title and slander of title; Paul sought to quiet title and reunite the minerals with her surface under the ODMA.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for appellees, quieting title to the one-half mineral interest in appellees and awarding nominal damages on appellees’ slander-of-title counterclaim; Paul appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed summary judgment de novo, analyzed compliance with ODMA procedures (notice, affidavit of abandonment, and claims-to-preserve), and considered whether appellees’ preservation filings were adequate and whether Paul’s abandonment filings slandered title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper characterization and standard for ODMA (forfeiture vs. abandonment) | Paul: ODMA is an "abandonment" statute to be construed in favor of surface owners seeking reunification. | Hannon: Whether called forfeiture or abandonment, ODMA must be applied according to its requirements to protect holders' property rights. | Court: Labeling immaterial; apply statute as written—surface owner must satisfy statutory steps and defendants’ protections prevail when they comply. |
| Whether Paul’s notice complied with R.C. 5301.56(E)(1) (sent to last known address and described the mineral interest) | Paul: She mailed notice to more current addresses; actual receipt cures any minor defects; notice substantial as a whole. | Hannon: Notice must properly identify holders and the mineral interest by required references. | Court: Although notice wording was confusing, read as a whole it substantially complied and put appellees on notice; address issue need not be resolved because appellees filed preservation claims. |
| Whether appellees’ "Affidavit to Preserve Mineral Interest" complied with R.C. 5301.56(C)/5301.52 and preserved their rights | Paul: Preservation filings were defective (missing surface owner identity/recording info, lacked street addresses, ambiguous description, failed other statutory particulars). | Hannon: The affidavits referenced recorded deeds (Cain, Davis, Patterson), adequately described the interest and accomplished the ODMA purpose of putting record notice of intent to preserve. | Court: Appellees’ preservation affidavits, though not perfect, met statutory purposes and sufficiently described the mineral interest by reference to recorded instruments; preservation succeeded. |
| Whether Paul’s recorded affidavits of abandonment slandered appellees’ title (malice and damages) | Paul: Her filings were a good-faith attempt to follow ODMA; no malice; appellees suffered no provable damages; slander claim fails. | Hannon: Paul recorded affidavits that purported to abandon appellees’ interests (including interests outside Paul’s surface), depriving appellees of royalties and causing harm. | Court: Grant of summary judgment to appellees on slander-of-title was erroneous—there is insufficient evidence of malice or damages on the record and reasonable dispute exists; appellate court reversed on this claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 2005) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (moving party’s burden on summary judgment and burden-shifting framework)
- Welco Indus., Inc. v. Applied Cos., 67 Ohio St.3d 344 (Ohio 1993) (summary judgment should be awarded with caution; resolve doubts for nonmoving party)