Ohio Dormant Mineral Act

In the camp of be careful how you plead and intend to prove a claim, those asserting an Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (ODMA) claim should pay careful attention to their pleading so as not to waive the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges. As the plaintiffs in Riccardi v. Jackson found out, waiver is a real possibility.
Continue Reading Ohio Dormant Mineral Act claim may waive attorney-client privilege

The Ohio Supreme Court has finally put to rest a long-standing debate about whether Ohio’s Marketable Title Act (MTA), Dormant Mineral Act (DMA), or both, may be applied to reunite severed mineral interests with the overlying surface estate. In a majority opinion decided Dec. 2, 2020, the court held that both acts may be independently applied to mineral estates. The court held, “The Marketable Title Act and the Dormant Mineral Act afford independent procedures, either of which may be used to effect the termination of a severed mineral interest, depending on the circumstances of the case and the time that has elapsed.” West v. Bode, 2020-Ohio-5473, ¶ 44.

Continue Reading Ohio Supreme Court holds that the Marketable Title Act and the Dormant Mineral Act both apply to severed oil and gas interests

Ohio landowners and holders of mineral interests should soon receive clarification regarding certain mineral rights. On Sept. 1, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted Fonzi v. Brown for review, a case involving the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (ODMA). Fonzi joins Gerrity v. Chervenak and West v. Bode, as the third major case on the court’s docket that raises questions about the ODMA and/or Marketable Title Act (MTA).

Continue Reading Supreme Court of Ohio to decide three cases regarding subsurface rights

The Ohio Supreme Court recently settled an open question under Ohio’s Marketable Title Act (MTA), determining that a reference to the type of interest created and to whom it was granted is all that is necessary under the MTA to preserve the interest. And interestingly, despite the existence of the Dormant Mineral Act (DMA), the Supreme Court applied the MTA to an oil and gas interest.

In Blackstone v. Moore, landowners filed a lawsuit against the owners of an oil and gas royalty interest underlying the landowners’ property, seeking to extinguish the interest under the MTA (Because the appellees (Kuhn heirs) had filed an affidavit to preserve their mineral interest within sixty days of receiving the Blackstones’ notice of intent to declare the mineral interest abandoned, there was no question that they had preserved their interests under the DMA). Created in 1915, the oil and gas royalty interest arose prior to the “root of title” (the last recorded title transaction before the preceding 40 years from when marketability is being determined) and therefore was subject to extinguishment under the MTA.


Continue Reading Reference to oil & gas royalty interest deemed sufficient under the Marketable Title Act

This week, the Ohio Supreme Court issued key decisions on its pending Dormant Mineral Act (DMA) cases. The Supreme Court Announcement itemized the various decisions released this morning, which were further detailed in Court News Ohio . Only three cases received full opinions: Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., Walker v. Shondrick-Nau and Albanese v.

Last year we reported on the flood of appeals pouring in to the Ohio Supreme Court raising dozens of questions about the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (DMA), which can be found at R.C. 5301.56. A year later we finally have a few answers and the surge of new DMA appeals seems to have subsided.

This blog post provides a comprehensive update on DMA cases that have been decided and which remain pending before the Ohio Supreme Court to date. Overall, two cases have been decided – Dodd v. Croskey and Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Buell – and 13 cases presenting 39 questions of law have been accepted and remain pending. There are no pending DMA appeals that have not been accepted for review.


Continue Reading Ohio Supreme Court still mulling many questions about the Dormant Mineral Act

Inconsistencies and ambiguities in the Ohio Dormant Minerals Act, Ohio Revised Code § 5301.56 (the “ODMA”), set the stage for legal battles that are just beginning.  Oil and gas operators may get caught in the crossfire.

Operators need to be aware of at least one glaring inconsistency in the current version[1] of the ODMA that sometimes makes it difficult to determine who owns a mineral interest that has been severed from the surface estate.  This inconsistency could render a lease meaningless, and make a lessee a trespasser, if the lease is not signed by the right party. 
Continue Reading Contradiction In The Ohio Dormant Minerals Act