2019 Ohio 4092
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 1902 Parks sold a one-half royalty in oil and gas underlying his Monroe County land (recorded in lease records); that royalty later burdened land that became owned by Lettie West in 1929 (deed reserved the one-half royalty).
- A 1959 probate certificate transferring the surface from Lettie West’s estate to George West made no reference to the prior royalty reservation; subsequent recorded deeds to Wayne (1996) and Rusty West (2002) generally recited “reservations of record” but did not specifically identify the 1902 royalty.
- In 1944 Nova Christman acquired at an auditor’s forfeiture sale a one-half royalty described by reference to the land owned by Lettie West and to the 1902 lease-record instrument; Christman recorded a preservation notice in 1977 and certificates of transfer in 2007 show the present royalty holders inherited that interest.
- Wayne and Rusty West sued in 2017 under the Marketable Title Act (MTA) seeking a declaration the one-half royalty was extinguished; the royalty holders intervened and counterclaimed, relying on the auditor’s deed and recorded preservation steps.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the royalty holders, concluding the Dormant Mineral Act (DMA) was the more specific statute and precluded MTA extinguishment; the appeals court reversed and remanded, holding the DMA and MTA are harmonious and the trial court must apply the MTA to the unresolved extinguishment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (West) | Defendant's Argument (Christman et al.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DMA precludes use of the MTA to extinguish mineral interests | MTA governs extinguishment; DMA is not the exclusive remedy | DMA is the more specific statute for minerals and displaces MTA | Reversed trial court: MTA and DMA are harmonizable; trial court erred to bar MTA claims |
| Whether the royalty holders lacked standing because the 1944 auditor’s deed referenced the name “Ed Westerman et al.” | Auditor deed name mismatch means royalty holders cannot prove title | Auditor’s deed conveyed a new, perfected title (and a 1977 notice + 2007 transfers memorialize chain) | Court held landowners failed to show lack of standing; royalty holders may assert their claim |
| Whether the one-half royalty was extinguished under the MTA because it was omitted from the landowners’ root and subsequent muniments | The 1959 root (and later deeds) do not reference the prior reservation; no preserving notice filed within 40 years, so MTA extinguishes the interest | Mineral chain contains title transactions (1944 deed, 1977 notice, 2007 transfers) that may preserve the interest under MTA/Heifner | Trial court did not decide the MTA merits; appellate court remanded for the trial court to apply the MTA and resolve extinguishment |
| Whether recordings in a separate mineral chain can preserve an interest under the MTA (Heifner principle) | Landowners urged focus on surface/root chain only | Heifner permits examining separate mineral chain; a title transaction there can save an interest | Court affirmed Heifner’s approach; directed trial court to consider mineral-chain recordings on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackstone v. Moore, 122 N.E.3d 132 (Ohio 2018) (applied MTA to a royalty interest and held a specific root-of-title reference can preserve a prior reservation)
- Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., 76 N.E.3d 1089 (Ohio 2016) (distinguished MTA extinguishment from DMA abandonment and held the 1989 DMA was not self-executing for automatic abandonment)
- Heifner v. Bradford, 446 N.E.2d 440 (Ohio 1983) (title transactions recorded in a separate mineral chain after a surface owner’s root can prevent MTA extinguishment)
- Spring Lakes, Ltd. v. O.F.M. Co., 467 N.E.2d 537 (Ohio 1984) (MTA does not apply to interests created after the root of title; exceptions in R.C. 5301.49 are to be narrowly read)
- Dodd v. Croskey, 37 N.E.3d 147 (Ohio 2015) (discussed differences in what counts as the “subject of” a title transaction under the DMA and how MTA and DMA tests differ)