On Dec.19, 2018, Gov. John Kasich signed SB 263 into law, which amends ORC 4735 to exempt oil and gas land professionals (landmen) from the licensure requirements imposed on real estate agents and brokers. The revisions to sections 4735.01 and 4735.023 introduce the concept of an “oil and gas land professional” (new ORC 4735.01(GG)), and
We have spilled a lot of “digital ink” on this blog addressing how Ohio courts have confronted oil and gas disputes about Ohio’s Dormant Mineral Act (DMA) and regulatory/zoning matters. As we noted previously, there are no less than five cases now pending before the Ohio Supreme Court about the DMA, presenting some 15 propositions of law. And the court still has not ruled on the long-pending Munroe Falls appeal, which addresses the extent to which municipalities may be preempted from applying zoning regulations to state-permitted oil and gas wells.
It has been interesting for those of us who practice in the firm’s Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Group to watch Ohio’s oil and gas boom touch other areas of the law, beyond the predictable DMA, leasing, and regulatory contexts. Two recent appellate decisions from Guernsey County – one of which is set to be argued before the Ohio Supreme Court in May – reflect how Ohioans’ interest in valuable mineral rights is affecting other facets of the law.
Is income from an oil and gas lease marital property?
On May 5, the Ohio Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Kuhn v. Kuhn n.k.a. Cottle. In Kuhn we see the effects of the oil and gas boom in the context of a divorce. Mr. Kuhn owned certain property, including mineral rights, before the parties were married. After their marriage, the husband’s property became the marital residence. Four years into their marriage, Mr. and Mrs. Kuhn executed an oil and gas lease with Gulfport Energy Corp., leasing the property for oil and gas development. The lease provided for a signing bonus of more than $120,000 and 20% royalties from any future oil and gas production.
Continue Reading Ohio’s appellate courts wrestle with oil and gas issues concerning domestic relations and dual-agent Realtors
The Ohio Supreme Court recently accepted a new group of civil cases; among them is Chesapeake Exploration, LLC v. Buell. In this case, the Supreme Court has agreed to answer the following two questions of Ohio law certified by United States District Judge Watson of the Southern District of Ohio in Case No. 2:12-cv-916:
- Is the recorded lease of a severed subsurface mineral estate a title transaction under the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act, R.C. 5301.56(B)(3)(a)?
- Is the expiration of a recorded lease and the reversion of the rights granted under that lease a title transaction that restarts the 20-year forfeiture clock under the ODMA at the time of the reversion?
In the previous three parts of this series (read part 1, part 2 and part 3), we reviewed the Ohio Marketable Title Act (MTA), its application to severed minerals, and the experience of neighboring states, all of which played a role in the development of the Ohio Dormant Minerals Act (DMA).
- The MTA was enacted in 1961 to make land titles marketable, i.e., free of stale claims. It included a grace period and did not require notice before a chain of title was extinguished in favor of another.
- The MTA generally applies to any property interest (presumably still including oil and gas interests) where no conveyance or claim to preserve has been filed during the past 40 years.
- The MTA does not necessarily extinguish all old severed mineral interests, even those with a root of title more than 40 years old, because the severed interest may be a separate chain of title.
- The Illinois DMA was found unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court in 1980 as violating due process because it did not require severed mineral owners to be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- Indiana’s Dormant Mineral Interests Act, Ind. Code §§ 32-5-11-1 through 32-5-11-8 (1976) — which includes a grace period, a 20-year use-it-or-lose-it attribute and no notice requirement — was held to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1982. Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516, 102 S. Ct. 781, 70 L. Ed. 2d 738, (1982)
- Illinois enacted its Severed Mineral Interest Act, which is based on presumptive adverse possession and requires notice, in 1983.
- Ohio’s lease forfeiture law requires notice and the filing of an affidavit. The law suspends the statutory determination when the lessee files an affidavit contesting the alleged forfeiture. The lessee’s filing must occur no more than 30 days after receiving notice.
- The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved the Uniform Dormant Interests Act in 1986.
Continue Reading The Ohio Dormant Minerals Act: Part 4
In part 2 of this series, we reviewed the application of the Marketable Title Act (MTA) in a 1982 case involving a severed mineral interest and two independent chains of title. The Ohio courts appeared to struggle with the application of the MTA to the facts of that case. Courts and legislatures in neighboring states also struggled with how to handle dormant severed minerals. Those states’ case law and statutes played a role in the formulation of the Ohio Dormant Minerals Act, which was enacted in 1989 as part of the MTA. Examples of such influential laws and cases from Illinois and Indiana follow.
Illinois DMA held unconstitutional in 19801
In Illinois, at common law, once a mineral estate has been severed from the surface estate, it cannot be terminated by mere nonuse or abandonment. Uphoff v Trustees of Tufts College, 351 Ill 146, 155, 184 NE 213, 216 (Ill 1932). Thus, mineral interests can lie dormant, even through several transfers of title. This situation, over time, can result in missing or unknown owners. The difficulty in ascertaining and locating severed mineral owners had a substantial deterrent effect on would-be gas and oil developers.
The Illinois legislature responded by enacting the Dormant Mineral Interests Act in 1969. The act was intended to facilitate development of dormant oil and gas interests by permitting consolidation of mineral ownership in one person in instances where it had formerly been diffused among many unknown or missing persons. The act provided that unless an individual duly recorded his interest, his failure to actually produce oil or gas in any 25-year period created a presumption of abandonment. There was great uncertainty among oil and gas title examiners regarding the act’s validity because, at common law, abandonment required both intent to abandon and an affirmative act of relinquishment. Furthermore, the act did not require entities who sought a ruling of abandonment to give unknown mineral owners notice or an opportunity to be heard.
Continue Reading The Ohio Dormant Minerals Act: Part 3
In the first part of this series, we reviewed a 2010 Licking County case, which held that Ohio’s Marketable Title Act (MTA) extinguished an adjoining landowner’s claim against former railroad property. This article discusses how the MTA was used to reconcile competing claims to a severed mineral interest before Ohio’s Dormant Minerals Act was passed.
The Marketable Title Act and severed minerals: coal excepted, but not oil and gas
When the MTA was first enacted in 1961, it expressly excepted all mineral interests . But in 1973 the Ohio Legislature amended the mineral interest exception so that only coal was excepted from the operation of the MTA. That amendment set the stage for Heifner v. Bradford, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CA-81-10, 1982 Ohio App. LEXIS 14859 (Jan. 29, 1982), overruled by Heifner v. Bradford, 4 Ohio St. 3d 49; 446 N.E.2d 440 (1983).
Continue Reading The Ohio Dormant Minerals Act: Part 2
The right, but not the obligation, to renew an existing lease
As we discussed previously, state and federal courts in Ohio have been asked to interpret the meaning of “paragraph 14” in oil and gas leases. On Oct. 30, 2013, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that paragraph 14 does not require a…
In our previous two segments on Section 16 lands — Part 1 and Part 2 — we examined the dedication, by Congress, of one section in each Ohio township, usually Section 16, for the support of public education. Initially, while retaining title to such lands in trust, Ohio vested administrative control in township trustees. However, the allocation of authority to the townships did not go well and in 1914 and 1917 the legislature reallocated responsibility to the Auditor of State as administrator of school lands remaining in state hands.
From 1827 to 1917, when the township trustees were authorized to sell or lease school land to private individuals, mineral title typically passed with the fee simple title. However, this practice ended in 1917 when the auditor assumed authority.
The 1917 legislation, known as the Garver Act, was enacted to provide for better administration of school lands. H.B. No. 192, 107 Ohio Laws 357, G.C. 3203. One of the issues was confusion about the status and ownership of leases of Section 16 parcels granted by township trustees. Section 23 of the Garver Act —provided procedure by which someone claiming title could file a claim with the state supervisor who, after public notice and if satisfied that the claim was valid, would execute a new lease. The Garver Act also provided a mechanism whereby a lessee could surrender his lease and obtain a fee simple title.
Continue Reading Part 3: Who owns the minerals under Ohio Township Section 16?
As with prior posts about oil and gas leases in bankruptcy (located here and, on Porter Wright’s Banking & Finance Law Report blog, here), this post presents another thorny issue — namely, “Is an oil and gas lease a lease at all?”
Whether an oil and gas lease is a “lease” is significant in the bankruptcy context, because the Bankruptcy Code has several provisions regarding the treatment of leases.
This post considers two cases that interpret 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(4), which provides that unless the bankruptcy court orders an extension, “an unexpired lease of nonresidential real property under which the debtor is the lessee shall be deemed rejected, and the trustee shall immediately surrender that nonresidential real property to the lessor, if the trustee does not assume or reject the unexpired lease by … the date that is 120 days after the date of the order for relief [(typically, the commencement of the case)]….” The Code further provides that “the rejection of an … unexpired lease of the debtor constitutes a breach of such contract or lease … immediately before the date of the filing of the petition.”
Continue Reading What Goes Up … Quick Glance #3 at Ohio Oil and Gas Leases in Bankruptcy
In our first post about Section 16 lands, we provided background on such public lands here in Ohio. We summarized that in 1785, a Federal land ordinance granted one square mile — usually Section 16 — out of every six square mile township to be held in trust by the state and to be dedicated to support public education pursuant to federal law. The Ohio Legislature then began leasing the land, and in 1827 it authorized sale of the land with proceeds going to the “Common School Fund.” Interest from the fund was to be paid to the schools within the townships. See, Dr. George W. Knepper, The Auditor of State, The Official Ohio Lands Book, 2002. (“Knepper”).
In regard to the funds collected from the sale of all school lands, the Ohio Constitution provided:
“The principal of all funds, arising from the sale, or other disposition of lands, or other property, granted or entrusted to this state for educational and religious purposes, shall forever be preserved inviolate, and undiminished; and, the income arising therefrom, shall be faithfully applied to the specific objects of the original grants, or appropriations.” Ohio Constitution, Article VI, Section 1 1Continue Reading Part 2: Who owns the minerals under Ohio Township Section 16?