Warner v. Palmer
2017 Ohio 1080
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Warner Family Trust) sued to quiet title to a one-half severed mineral interest reserved in a 1924 deed, alleging abandonment under the Dormant Mineral Act (DMA) and alternatively asserting extinguishment under the Marketable Title Act (MTA).
- Defendants are descendants/heirs of the original mineral reserving grantees; plaintiffs alleged probate inventories did not list the minerals and that no recorded title transactions existed in the county recorder’s office.
- Plaintiffs moved for judgment on the pleadings; defendants answered and recorded a post-notice claim to preserve under the 2006 DMA (filed November 27, 2013) and argued heirs/successors can preserve rights.
- Trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for plaintiffs, holding the 1989 Dormant Mineral Act caused automatic vesting in the surface owner and concluding the minerals were also extinguished via a >40-year chain of title (root deed dated May 11, 1967).
- On appeal, the Seventh District stayed the case pending Ohio Supreme Court DMA decisions, then reversed the trial court: it held the 1989 DMA cannot be used to find automatic abandonment for claims asserted after the 2006 amendments and remanded for further proceedings on alternative theories (2006 DMA and MTA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1989 Dormant Mineral Act automatically vested severed minerals in surface owner | 1989 DMA was self-executing; minerals vested automatically after grace period | 1989 DMA not self-executing; cannot be used for claims after 2006 | Reversed: 1989 DMA does not apply to claims asserted after 2006; it was not self-executing per Ohio Sup. Ct. precedent |
| Whether defendants/heirs could file a post-notice claim to preserve under 2006 DMA | Plaintiffs: no recorded title transaction or record holder, so heirs not entitled to preserve; publication notice sufficed | Defendants: heirs/successors are holders; one timely claim to preserve protects all holders; post-notice claim filed validly | Trial court erred granting judgment on the pleadings; defendants’ post-notice claim could qualify and factual development required |
| Whether notice could be by publication rather than certified mail under 2006 DMA | Plaintiffs alleged they served by certified mail and by publication where needed | Defendants dispute certified-mail service and challenge use of publication without showing certified-mail attempts failed | Not resolved on pleadings; record lacks properly admitted service proof; timely preservation claim can moot service disputes |
| Whether minerals were extinguished under the Marketable Title Act via >40-year chain of title | Plaintiffs: root deed from 1967 creates unbroken 40-year chain; minerals extinguished and "null and void" | Defendants: factual disputes about title transactions (wills, probate filings) and recording; probate filings can qualify as recording; denial of extinguishment in pleadings | Trial court prematurely decided; factual record insufficient to grant judgment on the pleadings as to MTA extinguishment; remanded for further development |
Key Cases Cited
- Dodd v. Croskey, 143 Ohio St.3d 293 (Ohio 2015) (post-notice claims to preserve under the 2006 DMA can defeat abandonment; definition of “holder” includes heirs/assigns)