Prior to this decision, the only appellate court in Ohio to confirm that the 1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (R.C. 5301.56 (in effect prior to June 30, 2006)) was self-executing, i.e. contained an automatic abandonment and vesting mechanism, was the Seventh District Court of Appeals.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals, in affirming the trial court’s decision, followed the holdings in Walker v. Shondrick-Nau, 2014-Ohio-1499 and Swartz v. Householder, 2014-Ohio-2359, and held that the 1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act automatically abandoned dormant, severed mineral interests and vested title to the same in the affected surface owners.
Additionally, the Fifth District Court of Appeals held that the 1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act applied to the current litigation (meaning it applied to severed mineral interests which met the abandonment criteria prior to June 30, 2006) and not the amended version of the statute (amended in 2006).
The Fifth District Court of Appeals also held that the 1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act was constitutional. That portion of the decision relied upon the holding of Texaco v. Short, 454 U.S. 516, 102 S.Ct. 781 (1982), a United States Supreme Court case which reviewed Indiana’s dormant mineral statute, which is substantially similar to the 1989 Ohio Dormant Mineral Act.Read the whole post here.
Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter!