Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the Dormant Mineral Act does not require a surface owner to identify every holder of a severed mineral interest or attempt certified-mail service on every holder before using notice by publication. The court held that a surface owner must exercise reasonable diligence to identify and locate holders, with the sufficiency of that diligence determined by the facts and circumstances of each case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act, R.C. 5301.56(E)(1), requires a surface owner to identify every holder, successor, or assignee of a severed mineral interest before using notice by publication.
- Whether the Act requires an attempted certified-mail service on every holder before notice by publication may be used.
- What degree of search or reasonable diligence a surface owner must exercise to identify and locate holders of a severed mineral interest before using notice by publication.
- Whether the Dormant Mineral Act's notice provisions, as applied when a mineral-interest holder cannot be identified or located, violate due process.
Holdings
- The Dormant Mineral Act does not require a surface owner to specifically identify by name every holder, successor, or assignee of a severed mineral interest before using notice by publication when a holder cannot be identified.
- A surface owner need not attempt certified-mail service when it is apparent that service cannot be completed because a holder's identity or address is unknown or the holder is otherwise unlocatable.
- A surface owner must exercise reasonable diligence to identify and locate holders of a severed mineral interest, but what constitutes reasonable diligence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and is not governed by a bright-line search requirement.
- The Chervenaks exercised reasonable diligence under R.C. 5301.56(E)(1) by searching the relevant property and probate records in Guernsey and Cuyahoga Counties, mailing notice to Richards's last known address, and then publishing notice after the mailing was returned undeliverable.
- The Dormant Mineral Act's notice provisions do not violate due process when applied to an unidentified or unlocatable mineral-interest holder.
Key quotations
“A surface owner must use reasonable diligence to identify and locate holders of a severed mineral interest, but what constitutes reasonable diligence will vary, based on the facts of each case.” (¶ 24)
“When a surface owner’s reasonable search fails to reveal the names or addresses of holders of the mineral interest, the surface owner may provide notice by publication, pursuant to R.C. 5301.56(E)(1), and need not attempt to serve the unknown or unlocated holders by certified mail.” (¶ 41)
Factual background
A 1961 deed severed the mineral rights underlying approximately 108 acres in Guernsey County from the surface estate. A 1965 certificate of transfer identified Jane F. Richards as the mineral-interest holder, but Richards died in 1997 and the county records contained no evidence of her death or of her son Timothy Gerrity's inheritance. Before invoking the Dormant Mineral Act, the surface owners searched property and probate records in Guernsey and Cuyahoga Counties, mailed notice to Richards's last known Cleveland address, and, after the mail was returned undeliverable, published notice of abandonment.
Procedural history
The Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas entered summary judgment for Chervenak and declared the Chervenak Family Trust the owner of the mineral rights. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed in a split decision. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the appellate judgment.