Dodd v. Croskey, 143 Ohio St. 3d 293

37 N.E.3d 147 (Ohio 2015) · Supreme Court of Ohio · June 18, 2015

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court held that a mineral-interest holder’s claim to preserve under Ohio’s Dormant Mineral Act, R.C. 5301.56(H)(1)(a), can prevent abandonment when filed within 60 days after the surface owner’s notice of intent to declare the interest abandoned. The court rejected the argument that the claim to preserve must instead have been filed during the 20 years preceding the notice and affirmed the judgment of the Seventh District Court of Appeals.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Chief Justice O'Connor; Justice Pfeifer; Justice O'Donnell; Justice Lanzinger; Justice Kennedy; Justice French; Justice O'Neill
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
June 18, 2015
Procedural posture
Appellants brought a declaratory-judgment and quiet-title action concerning ownership of severed oil and gas interests and moved for summary judgment under Ohio's Dormant Mineral Act. The trial court granted summary judgment to appellees, and the Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the discretionary appeal and affirmed.
Standard of review
Statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Phillip Dodd, Julie Bologna v. John William Croskey, Mary E. Surrey, Roy Surrey, Emma Jane Croskey, Margaret Ann Turner, Mary Louise Morgan, Martha Beard, Lee Johnson, Edwin Johnson, JoAnn Zitko, David B. Porter, JoAnn C. Wesley, Cindy R. Weimer, Evart Dean Porter, Stuart Barry Porter, Brian Porter, Mary Elaine Porter, Kim Berry, Samuel G. Boak, Lorna Bower, Sandra Dodson, Ian Resources, L.L.C., Karen A. Chaney, Patty Hausman, Linda C. Boyd, Terri Hocker, Harriet C. Evans
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

mineral rightsoil and gasquiet titlestatutory interpretationlegislative intent

Practice areas

mineral rightsoil and gasreal estatestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a mineral-interest holder's claim to preserve filed within 60 days after notice under R.C. 5301.56(H)(1)(a) preserves the mineral interest even though the claim was not filed during the 20-year period preceding the notice.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court needed to decide whether the mineral-interest exception in the 2009 deed constituted a saving event under R.C. 5301.56(B)(3)(a).

Holdings

  1. A mineral-interest holder's claim to preserve filed under R.C. 5301.56(H)(1)(a) is sufficient to prevent the mineral interest from being deemed abandoned when filed within 60 days after service or publication of the surface owner's notice, even if the claim was not filed within the preceding 20 years.
  2. The court did not reach the effect of the mineral-interest exception in the 2009 deed because the case was resolved by the independent conclusion that the post-notice claim to preserve satisfied R.C. 5301.56(H)(1)(a).

Key quotations

We hold that a mineral-interest holder’s claim to preserve filed pursuant to R.C. 5301.56(H)(1)(a) is sufficient to preclude the mineral interests from being deemed abandoned if filed within 60 days after notice of the surface owner’s intent to declare those interests abandoned. (143 Ohio St. 3d at 301)
The statute plainly permits a mineral-interest holder to preserve his or her claim by filing either a claim to preserve within 60 days or an affidavit identifying a saving event in the 20 years preceding notice. (143 Ohio St. 3d at 300)

Factual background

Dodd and Bologna acquired surface rights to Harrison County property by a 2009 deed that excepted and reserved underlying oil and gas rights. After an oil and gas company contacted them about leasing the minerals, they published notice of intent to declare the severed mineral interests abandoned under Ohio's Dormant Mineral Act. Within 60 days after publication, Croskey filed an affidavit identifying the mineral-rights holders and stating that they intended to preserve their interests. Dodd and Bologna then sought to quiet title and obtain a declaration that the mineral interests had vested in them.

Procedural history

Dodd and Bologna acquired surface rights and published notice of intent to have the severed mineral interests deemed abandoned. John William Croskey thereafter recorded a quitclaim deed and filed an affidavit preserving the mineral interests. The trial court held that the interests had been preserved and granted appellees summary judgment; the Seventh District affirmed on the ground that the affidavit complied with R.C. 5301.56(H)(1)(a). The Supreme Court affirmed that judgment on the claim-to-preserve issue and declined to reach other issues discussed by the court of appeals.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…