2019 Ohio 936
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- 1946: Godfrey Winkler deeded 110.25 acres to Anna Winkler, expressly reserving all oil and gas. Anna inherited the surface; siblings retained mineral shares.
- 1956: Anna’s siblings (her heirs) quitclaimed the property to Glen and Juanita Stalder, reserving “all of the oil, gas, coal and all other minerals…” and referencing the 1946 deed (book and page).
- 2001: Glen and Juanita conveyed the surface to David and Sherrie Stalder (appellees).
- 2013: Appellees filed an affidavit under the Dormant Mineral Act (DMA) claiming appellants (heirs of Anna’s siblings) had abandoned the mineral rights; appellants filed claims to preserve under the 2006 DMA and a quiet-title suit followed.
- Trial court initially found mineral rights vested under the 1989 DMA; this court remanded based on Corban, holding the 2006 DMA applies to cases filed after June 30, 2006. On remand, the trial court granted summary judgment for appellees under the Marketable Title Act (MTA), extinguishing appellants’ mineral interests. Appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stalder) | Defendant's Argument (Bucher et al.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MTA, rather than the 2006 DMA, governs extinguishment of the severed mineral interests | MTA applies to all interests; it can extinguish mineral rights recorded long ago, so appellants’ interests are extinguished | 2006 DMA is the specific controlling statute for abandonment/preservation of severed mineral interests for actions filed after 2006 | Court: Oil/gas interests are subject to both MTA and DMA; application of MTA was appropriate (first assignment overruled) |
| Whether an exception to the MTA (preservation by specific reference in chain of title) preserves appellants’ mineral interests | The 1956 root-of-title deed specifically references and reserves the mineral interest (describing types of minerals, tracts, and citing the 1946 deed/book/page), so the interest is preserved from MTA extinguishment | Appellees argued MTA extinguished the mineral interest | Court: The reservation is a "specific reference" under Blackstone’s test, so the R.C. 5301.49(A) exception preserves appellants’ mineral interests; trial court erred—judgment reversed and minerals preserved for appellants |
Key Cases Cited
- Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., 76 N.E.3d 1089 (Ohio 2016) (held the 2006 DMA applies to actions filed after June 30, 2006)
- Byrd v. Smith, 850 N.E.2d 47 (Ohio 2006) (summarizes Ohio summary-judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (articulates summary judgment and genuine issue of material fact standard)