Snyder v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (Slip Opinion)
18 N.E.3d 416
Ohio2014Background
- ODNR owns a 651.43-acre tract in Jefferson County; the seller reserved "all mineral rights, including rights of ingress and egress and reasonable surface right privileges."
- Snyder acquired the reserved mineral rights and discovered coal worth over $2,000,000 on about 10–15% of the acreage and sought to surface- (strip-) mine and auger-mine that portion.
- ODNR refused to permit surface mining on the wildlife area; Snyder sued for a declaratory judgment that the reservation permits reasonable surface mining.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to ODNR; the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted review.
- The central contractual phrase at issue: "reasonable surface right privileges." The case was decided on summary judgment, so the Supreme Court applied de novo review.
- The Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for ODNR, holding the reservation can encompass surface mining subject to a contractually required reasonableness inquiry, and remanded to determine what is reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Snyder) | Defendant's Argument (ODNR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "reasonable surface right privileges" grants a right to strip-mine | Clause authorizes reasonable surface use, including strip/auger mining of a limited portion (10–15%) that is economically necessary | Clause limits surface use to customary ingress/egress and deep-mining incidental uses; strip mining destroys the surface and requires express reservation | Reservation can permit surface mining; question of scope is factual and reasonableness must be determined on remand |
| Whether strip mining is categorically excluded absent explicit language | Snyder: phrase is not limited to deep-mining language; strip mining existed when deed was made so parties could have intended it | ODNR: precedent requires clear, unequivocal language to allow strip mining because it destroys surface estate | Court: precedents (Skivolocki/Graham) hinge on deep-mining language; here language is neutral, so those cases do not resolve the matter |
| Standard for resolving conflicting surface vs. mineral interests | Snyder: balance interests under "reasonable" term and assess practical impacts and remediation | ODNR: surface integrity rule limits mineral owner; heavy burden on mineral owner to show right to destroy surface | Court: balance interests, interpret contract for intent; apply a reasonableness standard considering extent, duration, remediation, and other factors |
| Appropriate remedy at summary judgment stage | Snyder: genuine factual issue precludes judgment for ODNR | ODNR: language is insufficient as a matter of law so summary judgment appropriate | Court: summary judgment improper for ODNR; remand for factual determination of what surface mining is reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Skivolocki v. E. Ohio Gas Co., 38 Ohio St.2d 244 (1974) (held that strip-mining is not incident to mineral ownership where deed language is peculiarly applicable to deep mining; heavy burden on party asserting strip-mining right)
- Graham v. Drydock Coal Co., 76 Ohio St.3d 311 (1996) (expanded Skivolocki: deeds using deep-mining language do not grant strip-mining rights)
- Quarto Mining Co. v. Litman, 42 Ohio St.2d 73 (1975) (recognizes necessary surface uses incident to mining such as shafts, rights-of-way, and housing)
- Burgner v. Humphrey, 41 Ohio St. 340 (1884) (early articulation that mineral owner may only use surface as reasonably necessary without injuring surface estate)
- Belville Mining Co. v. United States, 999 F.2d 989 (6th Cir. 1993) (federal case cited for principle that parties' intent controls; deep-mining language implies no strip-mining right)