Walker v. Shondrick-Nau (Slip Opinion)
149 Ohio St. 3d 282
| Ohio | 2016Background
- John R. Noon reserved coal, oil, gas, and other minerals in a 1965 deed when he conveyed the surface; subsequent 1970 and 1977 surface deeds referenced and restated that 1965 reservation.
- Walker purchased surface parcels in 2009; his deeds did not explicitly reference the 1965 reservation, though he later learned of it.
- In 2011 Walker sent a notice of abandonment under Ohio Rev. Code § 5301.56 and filed an Affidavit of Abandonment in 2012; Noon filed a timely Affidavit and Claim to Preserve Mineral Interests in response.
- Walker sued in 2012 for declaratory relief/quiet title, arguing the mineral interest had merged with the surface under the 1989 Dormant Mineral Act (ODMA).
- Trial court and Seventh District ruled for Walker; the Ohio Supreme Court granted review on multiple propositions about which ODMA version applies and how preservation/saving events operate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Walker) | Defendant's Argument (Noon/Shondrick‑Nau) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which version of Ohio's Dormant Mineral Act applies to claims filed after 2006? | 1989 ODMA is self‑executing; mineral rights automatically vested in surface owner after the statutory period. | 2006 ODMA governs post‑2006 claims; 1989 ODMA ambiguous and should not be treated as self‑executing. | 2006 ODMA applies to claims asserted after 2006 (followed Corban). |
| Did Noon’s timely Affidavit/Claim to Preserve prevent abandonment under the applicable (2006) ODMA? | Walker argued he had already reclaimed title under prior law and Noon’s filing was too late. | Noon argued his timely claim to preserve (filed within statutory period after notice) was sufficient under R.C. 5301.56(H). | Noon’s claim to preserve, timely filed, precluded the mineral interests from being deemed abandoned under the 2006 ODMA (followed Dodd). |
| Were earlier deeds (1970/1977) that referenced the 1965 reservation ‘‘title‑transaction saving events’’ under the 1989 ODMA? | Walker contended those deeds did not constitute saving events sufficient to prevent abandonment. | Noon argued the repeated recorded references preserved the interest as subject of title transactions. | The Court did not decide this question because the 2006 ODMA and Noon’s timely preservation claim resolved the case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., 76 N.E.3d 1089 (Ohio 2016) (held the 2006 amendments govern post‑2006 challenges to alleged automatic vesting under the 1989 ODMA)
- Dodd v. Croskey, 37 N.E.3d 147 (Ohio 2015) (holding a timely filed claim to preserve under R.C. 5301.56(H) prevents mineral interests from being deemed abandoned)
- Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Buell, 45 N.E.3d 185 (Ohio 2015) (analysis of what constitutes a "title‑transaction saving event" under the ODMA)