2022 Ohio 395
Ohio2022Background
- In 1916 W.T. and Katherine Fleahman conveyed two tracts but "excepted and reserved" one-half of the oil-and-gas royalty; subsequent conveyances (1920, 1929) involved Mary and W.T. Fleahman reserving portions of oil/gas rights without words of inheritance (all pre-1925).
- Peppertree Farms and Jay & Amy Moore sued to quiet title, arguing the reservations were only life estates (because deeds lacked words of inheritance) and that the Marketable Title Act (MTA) extinguished the interests.
- The trial court and Fifth District held the deeds created reservations (new rights), so without words of inheritance the grantors retained only life estates that expired on death; they also held the MTA extinguished some claimed interests.
- Appellants (Reinholtz, Miller, KOAG) argued the deed language simply excepted preexisting mineral/royalty interests (not reservations) and that the Dormant Mineral Act (DMA), not the MTA, controls reunification/extinguishment.
- The Ohio Supreme Court held the deeds created exceptions (withheld preexisting real-property rights in unaccrued royalties), so the interests were inheritable and did not terminate on the grantors’ deaths; but under West v. Bode the MTA and DMA provide alternative mechanisms, so the MTA extinguishment of Reinholtz’s and Miller’s interests stands.
- The court reversed as to KOAG because the trial court never concluded the MTA extinguished the T.J. Kremer interest, and KOAG’s interest could have been validly acquired post‑death of W.T. Fleahman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre‑1925 deed language that "excepts and reserves" or "is reserved and is not made part of this transfer" created only a life estate (reservation) absent words of inheritance | Peppertree: language created reservations (new grantor rights) so without words of inheritance only life estates were retained | Reinholtz/Miller/KOAG: language created exceptions (withheld preexisting mineral/royalty interests), so inheritable fee interests survived | Court: Deeds were exceptions of preexisting unaccrued‑royalty (real) interests; words of inheritance not required; interests did not terminate on grantors’ deaths |
| Whether the Dormant Mineral Act supersedes and excludes use of the Marketable Title Act to reunite severed mineral interests | Reinholtz/Miller/KOAG: DMA is exclusive means; MTA cannot extinguish mineral interests | Peppertree: MTA can extinguish severed mineral interests | Court: Not exclusive — per West, DMA and MTA are independent, alternative mechanisms; West controls |
| Whether summary judgment extinguishing KOAG’s claimed interest was proper | Peppertree: all claimed interests were terminated (either by death or MTA) | KOAG: its T.J. Kremer interest was validly transferred and was not found extinguished by MTA by the trial court | Court: Summary judgment for Peppertree against KOAG was erroneous; remanded for proceedings on KOAG interest |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Bode, 165 N.E.3d 298 (Ohio 2020) (MTA and DMA are independent, alternative mechanisms to reunite severed mineral interests)
- Gill v. Fletcher, 78 N.E. 433 (Ohio 1906) (distinguishes reservation from exception; exception can preserve inheritable fee)
- Embleton v. McMechen, 143 N.E. 177 (Ohio 1924) (under pre‑1925 common law, reservations required words of inheritance to retain fee)
- Pure Oil Co. v. Kindall, 156 N.E. 119 (Ohio 1927) (discusses royalty as personal property but is dicta and not dispositive here)