Pollock v. Mooney
2014 Ohio 4435
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Pollock and wife own property in Malaga Township, Monroe County, Ohio.
- Appellees seek a declaratory judgment extinguishing Mooney's oil and gas royalty interest under the Marketable Title Act (MTA).
- Root of title is the 1951 Thornberry deed; the royalty interest traces to a 1902 Sale of Royalty to Mooney.
- Trial court granted summary judgment that the Mooney royalty was extinguished absent statutory exceptions.
- Mooney argues the royalty is personal property not subject to the MTA, or that certain title transactions preserved the interest under MTA exceptions.
- Mooney also contests the assessment of costs after publication service to 11 defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MTA applies to a royalty interest and extinguishes pre-root interests | Pollock argues the MTA applies to royalty interests as real property interests. | Mooney contends the royalty is personal property not subject to the MTA. | Yes, MTA applies and extinguishes the pre-root royalty interest. |
| Whether the royalty could be preserved under an MTA exception via a title transaction within 40 years | Pollock contends no qualifying title transaction preserved the interest. | Mooney contends probate/transfer through title transactions could preserve it per 5301.49(D). | No genuine issue; no evidence of such probate transfers; summary judgment upheld for Pollock on extinguishment. |
| Whether the costs award against Mooney was improper | Pollock asserts costs were proper as prevailing party. | Mooney claims abuse of discretion and improper allocation of publication costs. | Costs award reversed; remand to determine exact portion Mooney owes, limited to at most one-eleventh of publication fee. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pure Oil Co. v. Kindall, 116 Ohio St. 188 (Ohio 1927) (royalty interests treated as personal property; MTA applicability discussed conceptually)
- Benda v. Fana, 10 Ohio St.2d 259 (Ohio 1967) (statutory scope of costs and MTA considerations (context))
- Cunningham v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 104 Ohio App.3d 385 (9th Dist. 1995) (costs and evidentiary standards (Civ.R. 56) guidance)
- Woodell v. Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp., 156 Ohio App.3d 602 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard in costs; Civ.R. 54(D))
- Semachko v. Hopko, 301 N.E.2d 560 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 1973) (MTA purpose to simplify land title transactions (context))