2017 Ohio 9213
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Surface owners Ronald and Candace Talbot sued to quiet title and have mineral (oil & gas royalty, bonus, rental) interests declared abandoned and merged into the surface; suit filed in 2013.
- Appellants (Christman heirs) intervened claiming the mineral interests: one 1/2 derived from a 1945 Ward→Nova Christman deed and the other 1/2 from a 1967 Tomolonis→Christman deed (Tomolonis’ interest traced to a 1943 Mellott→Tomolonis conveyance).
- Trial court granted summary judgment to the Talbots, holding the 1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (DMA) applied and the minerals were abandoned and that the challenged deeds did not convey mineral interests to Appellants’ predecessor.
- On appeal the court held the 1989 DMA is inapplicable to claims filed after the 2006 DMA’s effective date; therefore abandonment under the 1989 DMA could not support the trial court’s ruling.
- The court analyzed title: it found Appellants own (1) the 1945 Ward→Christman 1/2 interest (preserved under the 2006 DMA) and (2) the other 1/2 via the Mellott→Tomolonis→Tomolonis→Christman chain — concluding Mellott’s 1943 deed conveyed 1/2 to Tomolonis (and, alternatively, that any reservation by Mellott fails under Duhig-type estoppel).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Talbot) | Defendant's Argument (Christman heirs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which DMA governs abandonment claims | 1989 DMA applied; minerals abandoned and merged into surface | 2006 DMA governs claims filed after 2006; Talbot did not follow 2006 procedures | 2006 DMA governs claims filed after its effective date; trial court erred to rely on 1989 DMA |
| Does the 1945 Ward→Christman deed convey 1/2 mineral interest to Christman | Talbot did not dispute this explicitly at appeal | Christmans: Ward conveyed his reserved 1/2 to Nova Christman in 1945 and successors preserved it | Held for Appellants: 1945 deed conveyed 1/2 to Nova Christman and Appellants preserved it under 2006 DMA |
| Did the 1943 Mellott→Tomolonis deed reserve 1/2 to Mellott (so Tomolonis got none) | Talbot: Mellott reserved 1/2; Tomolonis never had that half to convey to Christman | Christmans: deed conveyed surface plus 1/2 to Tomolonis (language ambiguous but chain-of-title and subsequent deeds show Tomolonis acquired 1/2); alternatively reservation fails under estoppel (Duhig) | Held for Appellants: Mellott→Tomolonis conveyed surface plus 1/2 to Tomolonis; even if Mellott purported to reserve, reservation fails under Duhig-type estoppel |
| Remedy on remand | Maintain trial court judgment (Talbot) | Enter summary judgment for Appellants restoring full mineral estate to them | Court reversed trial court and remanded with instruction to enter summary judgment for Appellants (Appellants own entire mineral royalty, bonus, rental interests) |
Key Cases Cited
- Corban v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C., 149 Ohio St.3d 512 (2016) (2006 DMA applies to claims asserted after its effective date; 1989 DMA not self-executing)
- Walker v. Shondrick-Nau, 149 Ohio St.3d 282 (2016) (interpretation of DMA amendments)
- Albanese v. Batman, 148 Ohio St.3d 85 (2016) (2006 DMA requires notice and filing to effect abandonment)
- Duhig v. Peavy-Moore, 135 Tex. 503, 144 S.W.2d 878 (1940) (rule of estoppel where reservation and grant cannot both be given effect)
- Peterson v. Simpson, 286 Ark. 177, 690 S.W.2d 720 (1985) (applies Duhig-type analysis to reservations in warranty deeds)
- American Energy Corp. v. Datkuliak, 174 Ohio App.3d 398 (2007) (rules on deed language, reservation vs. exception)