in the supreme court of ohiosupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf ·...

107
02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO WAYNE L. WEST, et al., Appellants, v. C. J. BODE, et al., Appellees, Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2019- 1494 On Appeal from the Monroe County Court of Appeals, Seventh District Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case No. 18-MO- 0017 AMENDED MERIT BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE, CASSANDRA RIDENOUR, SENTERRA, LTD., DAVID AND JULIA CAIN, PEPPERTREE FARMS, LLC, PAINES RUN, LLC, AND PAUL E. MORRISON AND VESTA G. MORRISON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-TRUSTEES Charles H. Bean 113 West Main Street P.O. Box 96 St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950 Phone: (740) 695-0532 Fax: (740) 695-8039 [email protected] Counsel for Appellants Ryan M. Regel Yoss Law Office 122 N. Main Street P.O. Box 271 Woodsfield, Ohio 43793 Phone: (740) 472-0707 Fax: (740) 472-0770 [email protected] Counsel for Appellees Gregory W. Watts (0082127)* and *Counsel of Record Matthew W. Onest (0087907), of KRUGLIAK, WILKINS, GRIFFITHS & DOUGHERTY CO., L.P.A. 4775 Munson Street NW/P.O. Box 36963 Canton, Ohio 44735-6963 Phone: (330) 497-0700/Fax: (330) 497-4020 [email protected]; [email protected]; Counsel for Amici Curiae, Cassandra Ridenour, Senterra, Ltd., David and Julia Cain, Peppertree Farms, LLC, Paines Run, and Paul E. Morrison and Vesta G. Morrison, Individually and as Co-Trustees Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed April 03, 2020 - Case No. 2019-1494

Upload: others

Post on 11-Jul-2020

4 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

WAYNE L. WEST, et al.,

Appellants,

v.

C. J. BODE, et al.,

Appellees,

Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2019-

1494

On Appeal from the Monroe County

Court of Appeals, Seventh District

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Case No. 18-MO-

0017

AMENDED MERIT BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE, CASSANDRA RIDENOUR, SENTERRA, LTD., DAVID AND JULIA CAIN, PEPPERTREE FARMS, LLC, PAINES RUN, LLC, AND PAUL E. MORRISON AND VESTA G.

MORRISON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-TRUSTEES

Charles H. Bean

113 West Main Street

P.O. Box 96

St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950

Phone: (740) 695-0532

Fax: (740) 695-8039

[email protected]

Counsel for Appellants

Ryan M. Regel

Yoss Law Office

122 N. Main Street

P.O. Box 271

Woodsfield, Ohio 43793

Phone: (740) 472-0707

Fax: (740) 472-0770

[email protected]

Counsel for Appellees

Gregory W. Watts (0082127)* and

*Counsel of Record

Matthew W. Onest (0087907), of

KRUGLIAK, WILKINS, GRIFFITHS

& DOUGHERTY CO., L.P.A.

4775 Munson Street NW/P.O. Box 36963

Canton, Ohio 44735-6963

Phone: (330) 497-0700/Fax: (330) 497-4020

[email protected]; [email protected];

Counsel for Amici Curiae, Cassandra

Ridenour, Senterra, Ltd., David and Julia

Cain, Peppertree Farms, LLC, Paines Run,

and Paul E. Morrison and Vesta G. Morrison,

Individually and as Co-Trustees

Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed April 03, 2020 - Case No. 2019-1494

Page 2: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

STATEMENT OF INTEREST ........................................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ................................................................................1

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITION OF LAW ....................................................5

I. PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. I: “The Specific Statute Being the Ohio Dormant

Mineral Act O.R.C. Section 5301.56 Supersedes and Controls Over the Ohio

Marketable Title Act Being a General Statute O.R.C. 5301.47, et seq. and the Two

Are in Conflict as Shown Herein.” ......................................................................................5

A. The Court should dismiss this appeal as moot because the Royalty Interest

was preserved and therefore it is irrelevant whether the MTA applies to this

case. ......................................................................................................................... 5

B. The MTA’s extinguishment mechanism and the DMA’s abandonment

mechanism are unique, work parallel to one another, and are not in conflict. ....... 7

i. The MTA can easily be separately applied to severed mineral

interests and is not precluded by the mere existence of the DMA. ........... 10

ii. Appellants failed to prove an actual, irreconcilable conflict between

the MTA and DMA. .................................................................................. 15

iii. The cases cited by Amicus Curie Ascent Resources et al. do not

support ignoring the express language of the MTA.................................. 16

C. Appellants’ due process argument was waived and/or is not supported by

the facts. ................................................................................................................ 19

D. Appellants’ partial quote from Corban actually supports Amicus Curiae. ........... 22

E. The single-Justice concurrence in Blackstone has no bearing on the question

before the Court and the legislative history actually supports application of

the MTA to mineral interests. ............................................................................... 22

F. The MTA relies upon the record chain of title and as a result, Appellants’

argument about severed minerals passing outside the record of chain of title

is erroneous. .......................................................................................................... 25

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................29

PROOF OF SERVICE ...................................................................................................................30

APPENDIX

Appendix 1 - Fiscal Note Sub. S.B. 223

Page 3: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus,

17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53 ..........................................................................................................20

Blackstone v. Moore,

155 Ohio St.3d 448, 2018-Ohio-4959, 122 N.E.3d 132 (2018).....................................4, 10, 22

Blackstone v. Moore,

7th Dist. No. 14 MO 0001, 2017-Ohio-5704, 94 N.E.3d 108 .................................................13

Browne v. Artex Oil Co.,

2019-Ohio-4809 (Ohio) .............................................................................................................6

Capital Care Network of Toledo v. Ohio Dept. of Health,

153 Ohio St.3d 362, 2018-Ohio-440, 106 N.E.3d 1209 ............................................................6

Cawley JV, L.L.C. v. Wall St. Recycling, L.L.C.,

2015-Ohio-1846, 35 N.E.3d 30 (8th Dist.) ..............................................................................19

Collins v. Moran,

7th Dist. Mahoning No. 02 CA 218, 2004-Ohio-1381 ............................................................10

Corban v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C.,

149 Ohio St.3d 512, 2016-Ohio-5796, 76 N.E.3d 1089 (2016)....................................... passim

Dayton v. State,

151 Ohio St.3d 168, 2017-Ohio-6909, 87 N.E.3d 176 (2017).................................................19

State ex rel. Elliott Co. v. Connar,

123 Ohio St. 310, 175 N.E. 200 (1931) ...................................................................................18

Erickson v. Morrison,

5th Dist. Guernsey No. 19CA18, 2019-Ohio-5430 .................................................5, 10, 11, 13

Evans v. Cormican,

5th Dist. Licking No. 09 CA 76, 2010-Ohio-541 ....................................................................10

Griffith v. City of Cleveland,

128 Ohio St.3d 35, 2010-Ohio-4905, 941 N.E.2d 1157 (2010) ..............................................22

Heifner v. Bradford,

4 Ohio St.3d 49, 446 N.E.2d 440 (1983) ......................................................................... passim

Page 4: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 iii

Landefeld v. Keyes,

7th Dist. Case No. 548, 1982 WL 6146 (June 17, 1982) ...........................................................8

State ex rel. LetOhioVote.org v. Brunner,

123 Ohio St.3d 322, 2009-Ohio-4900, 916 N.E.2d 462 ............................................................6

Mindlin v. Zell,

10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-983, 2012-Ohio-3543 ..............................................................19

Muskingum Watershed Conservancy Dist. v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Services,

10th Dist. Franklin No. 96APE03-307, 1996 WL 532182 (Sept. 19, 1996) ...........................23

NaphCare, Inc. v. Cty. Council of Summit Cty.,

9th Dist. Summit No. 24906, 2010-Ohio-4458 .......................................................................14

Pinkney v. Southwick Investments, L.L.C.,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 85074, 2005-Ohio-4167 ....................................................................21

Pollock v. Mooney,

7th Dist. Monroe No. 13 MO 9, 2014-Ohio-4435 .............................................................10, 13

State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt,

164 Ohio St. 463, 132 N.E.2d 191 (1956) .........................................................................17, 18

Salloum v. Falkowski,

151 Ohio St.3d 531, 2017-Ohio-8722, 90 N.E.3d 918 ..............................................................6

Semachko v. Hopko,

35 Ohio App.2d 205, 301 N.E.2d 560 (8th Dist.1973) ..............................................................9

Senterra Ltd. v. Winland,

7th Dist. Belmont No. 18 BE 0051, 2019-Ohio-4387 .................................................11, 15, 16

Sentinel Sec. Systems v. Medkeff,

36 Ohio App.3d 86, 521 N.E.2d 7 (9th Dist.1987) ..................................................................14

Stalder v. Bucher,

7th Dist. Monroe No. 17 MO 0017, 2019-Ohio-936 ...............................................................22

State v. Moaning,

1996-Ohio-413, 76 Ohio St. 3d 126, 666 N.E.2d 1115 .....................................................16, 17

Summerville v. Forest Park,

128 Ohio St.3d 221, 2010-Ohio-6280, 943 N.E.2d 522 ..........................................................14

Swartz v. Householder,

2014-Ohio-2359, 12 N.E.3d 1243 (7th Dist.) ....................................................................13, 14

Page 5: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 iv

Texaco v. Short,

454 U.S. 516, 102 S.Ct. 781 (1982) ...................................................................................20, 21

Tribett v. Shepherd,

2014-Ohio-4320, 20 N.E.3d 365 (7th Dist.), reversed on other grounds by

2016-Ohio-5821 .......................................................................................................................13

Warner v. Palmer,

7th Dist. Belmont No. 14 BE 0038, 2017-Ohio-1080 ...........................................10, 12, 19, 22

West v. Bode,

7th Dist. Monroe No. 18 MO 0017, 2019-Ohio-4092, appeal allowed, 157

Ohio St.3d 1535, 2020-Ohio-122, 137 N.E.3d 1196 (2020)............................................ passim

Statutes

R.C. 1.49 ........................................................................................................................................22

R.C. 1.51 ........................................................................................................................................14

R.C. 141.08 ....................................................................................................................................17

R.C. 2319.01 et seq. .......................................................................................................................18

R.C. 2701.03 ..................................................................................................................................17

R.C. 2923.13 ..................................................................................................................................17

R.C. 2923.13(A)(3) ........................................................................................................................17

R.C. 2925.01(H) .............................................................................................................................17

R.C. 5301.47 et seq. ...........................................................................................................1, 4, 7, 11

R.C. 5301.48 ......................................................................................................................12, 24, 25

R.C. 5301.49 ....................................................................................................................................8

R.C. 5301.49(D) ...................................................................................................................9, 16, 28

R.C. 5301.50 ......................................................................................................................12, 16, 24

R.C. 5301.51 .......................................................................................................................... passim

R.C. 5301.52 ................................................................................................................................3, 8

R.C. 5301.53 ....................................................................................................................8, 9, 12, 18

R.C. 5301.53(E) .............................................................................................................................12

Page 6: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 v

R.C. 5301.56 ....................................................................................................................................4

R.C. 5301.59 ..................................................................................................................................25

Other Authorities

Ohio Constitution, Section 3, Article IV .......................................................................................17

Page 7: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 1

STATEMENT OF INTEREST

Amici Curiae, Cassandra Ridenour, Senterra, Ltd., David and Julia Cain, Peppertree

Farms, LLC, Paines Run, and Paul E. Morrison and Vesta G. Morrison, Individually and as Co-

Trustees, and Counsel for Amici Curiae submit this Amicus Brief in support of Appellees on the

proposition of law at issue in this appeal.

Amici Curiae are Ohio residents and real property owners who will be directly affected

by the Court’s interpretation of the Ohio Marketable Title (R.C. 5301.47 et seq.) (the “MTA”).

Amici Curiae own real property located in the State of Ohio, including Belmont, Guernsey, and

Monroe Counties, portions of which were previously subject to severances of oil, gas, and/or

other mineral rights. They, like many other landowners throughout the State of Ohio, acquired

and/or own their real property free and clear of severed mineral interests that were created

decades prior. Their situation is not unique to any other real property owner. The MTA applies

equally to all real property owners, including those claiming to own severed mineral interests.

Property interests which predate a party’s root of title instrument (which is going to be at least 40

years old) and which are not preserved in the 40 years after the root are extinguished.

Amici Curiae are involved in pending litigation in several Ohio courts dealing with the

application of the MTA to severed mineral interests created decades before the respective roots

of title. Amici Curiae have a vested interest in preserving their ownership of mineral rights which

were previously extinguished by the MTA. As a result, they have a vested interest in the outcome

of this appeal and as such, have standing to file this brief.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

The present appeal involves a reservation of certain oil and gas royalty rights in Monroe

County, Ohio. West v. Bode, 7th Dist. Monroe No. 18 MO 0017, 2019-Ohio-4092, ¶ 3, appeal

Page 8: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 2

allowed, 157 Ohio St.3d 1535, 2020-Ohio-122, 137 N.E.3d 1196, ¶ 3 (2020). It does not involve

the ownership of the oil and gas itself, but only a one-half (1/2) interest in the oil and gas

royalties. The facts are somewhat simple, but, as discussed below, highlight the fact that this

appeal does not actually require the Court to answer Appellants’ proposition. Instead, Appellants

prevail regardless of whether the MTA applies because there was a preserving event, specifically

a filed notice of preservation, in the 40 years immediately following Appellees’ root of title.

Therefore, the issue is moot and has no bearing on the outcome of the case.

The reserved royalty interest was created in 1902 by George Parks. Id. In that deed, Parks

conveyed “1/2 part of his royalty of all of the oil and gas in an [sic] under” his property

(approximately 66 acres) to C.J. Bode and George T. Nalley (the “Royalty Interest”). Id.

In 1929, George Parks transferred the property to Lettie West and indicated that he was

reserving the one-half (1/2) royalty he had previously conveyed. Id. at ¶ 4. That deed specifically

stated: “[t]he one half royalty is reserved by grantor in aforesaid tracts as sold to C.J. Bode and

George T. Nalley.” Id.

In 1959, Lettie West died and the property was conveyed to George E. West via a

certificate of transfer. Id. at ¶ 5. The “certificate of transfer described the 68 acres, attested it was

the same premises conveyed in the 1929 deed from Parks to Lettie West at Volume 99, Page

398, and made no reference to any reservation or exception.” Id. Appellees claim this certificate

of transfer is their root of title for purposes of the MTA.

In 1996, Appellee, Wayne West, acquired the property at issue. Id. at ¶ 6. His deed noted

that the property he acquired “was the same premises conveyed by [George] Parks to Lettie West

in 1929 at Volume 99, Page 398.” Id. In 2002, Wayne West conveyed approximately five (5)

acres of the property to Appellee, Rusty West. Id. at ¶ 7.

Page 9: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 3

In February 2017, Appellees filed the instant lawsuit, seeking to have the Royalty Interest

declared extinguished under the MTA. Id. at ¶ 8. The complaint alleged the 1959 certificate of

transfer conveying the property to George E. West was Appellees’ root of title. Id.

Appellants were not originally named as defendants and instead subsequently intervened

in this lawsuit. Id. at ¶ 11. They were permitted to intervene because “a 2007 recorded certificate

of transfer issued by the probate court shows they [Appellees] inherited the royalty interest [the

Royalty Interest] from Nova Christman, who recorded a notice in 1977 to preserve the royalty

interest he purchased in 1944 at an auditor's forfeited land sale.” Id.

In February 1977, Nova Christman filed a notice of preservation under R.C. 5301.51 and

R.C. 5301.52, which are the statutes governing notices of preservation under the MTA,

specifically identifying and preserving the Royalty Interest. The 2007 certificate of title through

which Appellants acquired the Royalty Interest repeated the information contained within the

1977 preservation notice. Id. at ¶ 14.

After discovery ended, the parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. Id. at

¶¶ 15-17. Appellees argued the Royalty Interest had been extinguished under the MTA. Id. at ¶

17. Appellants argued Appellees’ MTA claim could not proceed because the Ohio Dormant

Mineral Act’s (the “DMA”) abandonment mechanism controlled to the exclusion of the MTA’s

extinguishment mechanism. Id. at ¶ 15. Appellants’ summary judgment motion included various

title documents affecting the Royalty Interests, including the 1977 notice of preservation, as

exhibits, but Appellants failed to affirmatively argue that the title documents preserved the

Royalty Interest and thereby precluded extinguishment under the MTA. Id. at ¶ 16. However,

Appellants made these arguments in their reply in support of their motion for summary

judgment. Id.

Page 10: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 4

On August 21, 2018, the trial court granted summary judgment to Appellants, relying

solely on the proposition that the DMA controlled to the exclusion of the MTA. Id. at ¶ 20. The

trial court failed to address how the Royalty Interest’s title documents affected application of the

MTA, i.e. whether they preclude extinguishment.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals overruled the trial court’s decision, relying on this

Court’s prior decisions in Corban v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C., 149 Ohio St.3d 512, 2016-Ohio-

5796, 76 N.E.3d 1089 (2016) and Blackstone v. Moore, 155 Ohio St.3d 448, 2018-Ohio-4959,

122 N.E.3d 132 (2018). Id. at ¶¶ 29-47. The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court

to apply the MTA because the trial court had not examined how the MTA applied to the facts

before it, based on the erroneous conclusion that the MTA did not apply to the Royalty Interest.

Id. at ¶¶ 61-63. That being said, the appellate court set forth in detail the pertinent chain of

title, including the 1977 preservation notice, which would absolutely preclude Appellees

from prevailing under the MTA. Id. at ¶¶ 54-59.

As discussed in greater detail below, Appellees cannot prevail under the MTA. As a

result, Appellants’ appeal is moot and the Court should refrain from answering the single

proposition of law and instead remand this case to the trial court for application of the MTA to

the facts at hand.

Page 11: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 5

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITION OF LAW

I. PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. I: “The Specific Statute Being the Ohio Dormant

Mineral Act O.R.C. Section 5301.56 Supersedes and Controls Over the Ohio

Marketable Title Act Being a General Statute O.R.C. 5301.47, et seq. and the Two

Are in Conflict as Shown Herein.”

A. The Court should dismiss this appeal as moot because the Royalty Interest

was preserved and therefore it is irrelevant whether the MTA applies to this

case.

The Court should dismiss this appeal as moot, thereby affirming the Seventh District’s

entry and opinion, and then remand this case back down to the trial court on the basis that

Appellants prevail regardless of whether the MTA applies because the Royalty Interest was

preserved under the 1977 notice of preservation (prior to the enactment of the DMA) and there is

no forty year period. As a result, the Court need not answer the proposition of law in order to

grant Appellants the necessary relief and therefore, the Court should refrain from issuing an

advisory opinion.

As the Court discussed in Corban, the party seeking extinguishment under the MTA must

prove the subject property interest was not subject to a preserving event in the forty (40) years

after the root of title. Erickson v. Morrison, 5th Dist. Guernsey No. 19CA18, 2019-Ohio-5430, ¶

32, quoting Corban, 149 Ohio St.3d 512, at ¶ 18. Thus, Appellees have the burden of proving

they have a 40-plus year period where the record chain of title in Monroe County does not

preserve the Royalty Interest.

However, the facts demonstrate unequivocally that Appellees cannot possibly prevail on

their MTA claim. The trial court and appellate court never had the opportunity to rule on the

MTA claim, as the trial court erroneously applied only the DMA, to the exclusion of the MTA.

West, 2019-Ohio-4092, ¶ 62. However, the Seventh District explicitly discussed the fact that the

Royalty Interest was the subject of a recorded notice of preservation in the 40 years after the

Page 12: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 6

surface owner’s [Appellees] root of title:

Thirty years after the recording of the auditor's deed, Nova Christman recorded

the 1977 preservation notice, which said the one-half royalty interest was acquired

through the 1944 auditor's deed (identified by volume and page) and recited the

language of the auditor's deed including Lettie West's name as the owner of the

land in 1944 and the volume and page of the recorded instrument which originally

severed the royalty interest (the 1902 sale of royalty). This 1977 notice was

recorded 18 years after the 1959 recorded certificate of transfer, which the

landowners rely on as their root of title.

Thirty years after the preservation notice was recorded, certificates of transfer

issued by the probate court were recorded (in 2007). These title transactions show

the royalty holders received Nova Christman's royalty interest from the probate

court, and they recite the same information contained in the 1977 notice.

Id. at ¶¶ 57-58 (emphasis added). Thus, in the 40 years immediately following Appellees’

alleged root of title (the 1959 certificate of title), there was a notice of preservation. Therefore, it

appears Appellees will be unable to prove any set of facts to support their claim of

extinguishment under the MTA. As a result, Appellants’ appeal is moot. For that reason, the

Court should dismiss this appeal.

Because a summary judgment in favor of Appellants, the royalty owners, is inescapable

on remand, determining whether the MTA controls or not does not affect the outcome of the

case. An appellate court reviews the inferior court's judgment, not its reasoning, and as this Court

has stated, “[w]e have ‘consistently held that a reviewing court is not authorized to reverse a

correct judgment merely because erroneous reasons were assigned as the basis thereof,” Salloum

v. Falkowski, 151 Ohio St.3d 531, 2017-Ohio-8722, 90 N.E.3d 918, ¶ 12, quoting Joyce v. Gen.

Motors Corp., 49 Ohio St.3d 93, 96, 551 N.E.2d 172 (1990).

Furthermore, deciding whether the MTA applies in this case is unnecessary and

contravenes the Court’s “long-standing practice disfavor[ing] issuing advisory opinions,” Capital

Care Network of Toledo v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 153 Ohio St.3d 362, 2018-Ohio-440, 106

Page 13: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 7

N.E.3d 1209, ¶ 31, as well as “the ‘cardinal principle of judicial restraint—if it is not necessary

to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more,’ ” State ex rel. LetOhioVote.org v. Brunner,

123 Ohio St.3d 322, 2009-Ohio-4900, 916 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 51, quoting PDK Laboratories, Inc. v.

United States Drug Enforcement Administration, 362 F.3d 786, 799 (D.C.Cir.2004) (Roberts, J.,

concurring in part and concurring in judgment). See Browne v. Artex Oil Co., 2019-Ohio-4809,

¶¶ 47-64 (Ohio) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (“As I explain below, regardless of this court's ruling

on the statute-of-limitations issue, the ultimate judgment will be the same—summary judgment

in favor of the oil companies (because under the law-of-the-case doctrine, the court of appeals'

rulings on the issues that were not accepted for review by this court will remain in place on

remand) Accordingly, I would dismiss this appeal as moot.”). The Court should let this case be

decided on its unique facts, which requires a remand to the trial court, and refrain from

answering the broader legal question presented herein.

B. The MTA’s extinguishment mechanism and the DMA’s abandonment

mechanism are unique, work parallel to one another, and are not in conflict.

If the Court decides to substantively answer Appellants’ proposition of law, which it

should not, the Court must answer the proposition in the negative. Appellants’ analysis of the

conflict issue is inherently flawed because it ignores the fact this Court held, in Corban, that the

MTA and DMA are separate statutes, with separate mechanisms for determining whether a

severed mineral interest is still valid. While the statutes may be different, they are not in conflict

with one another because they govern separate areas – extinguishment based on record title and

abandonment based upon lack of use.

The MTA, as codified in R.C. 5301.47, et seq., provides a statutory mechanism through

which interests affecting real estate are extinguished by automatic operation of law if certain

factors are met. Should the MTA not automatically extinguish an interest, then the DMA

Page 14: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 8

provides an alternate mechanism by which a landowner can attempt to statutorily abandon a

mineral interest, should certain factors be met. The fact that surface owners may be the

beneficiaries of the acts is due to pragmatism, not any favoritism to surface owners--while the

passage of time may have obscured the identity of mineral owners, the surface owners are always

identifiable.

The Court discussed the distinction between and the dual application of the MTA’s

automatic extinguishment and the DMA’s statutory abandonment in Corban, 2016-Ohio-5796.

Accordingly, there exists no conflict between the MTA and the DMA, as they do different things

(i.e. extinguishment vs. abandonment). Even if there was a conflict between the statutes, the

Court would have to attempt to reconcile the two statutes as they apply to the facts at hand,

requiring application of both if at all possible.

The MTA extinguishes real property interests which predate a landowner’s “root of title.”

The modus operandi, if not the raison d’etre, of marketable title acts is the extinguishment of

properly recorded and filed property interests – regardless of the strength or legitimacy of the

underlying claims – in order to establish defect-free title. Subject to certain exceptions, the only

factor determining which interests are extinguished and which are preserved is the dates on

which the documents creating or preserving the interests were filed.

The purpose of the MTA is to “simplify land transactions” by extinguishing interests

unless specific elements are present. Landefeld v. Keyes, 7th Dist. Case No. 548, 1982 WL 6146

(June 17, 1982). The MTA extinguishes any interest which exists prior to the “root of title,”

provided that the interest is not:

1. Specifically stated or identified in the “root of title”;

2. Specifically stated or identified in one of the muniments of the chain of

record title within forty years after the root of title;

Page 15: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 9

3. Subject to a notice of preservation which complies with and is recorded in

accordance with R.C. 5301.51 and R.C. 5301.52;

4. One of the other exceptions provided for in R.C. 5301.49; or

5. One of the rights that are statutorily excepted from operation under R.C.

5301.53.

See Semachko v. Hopko, 35 Ohio App.2d 205, 301 N.E.2d 560 (8th Dist.1973). Importantly,

once an interest is extinguished, it cannot be revived by the filing of a preservation notice

under R.C. 5301.51. See R.C. 5301.49(D).

The MTA applies to all interests. The only interests excepted are set forth in R.C

5301.53, which states in whole:

The provisions of sections 5301.47 to 5301.56 of the Revised Code shall not be

applied to bar or extinguish any of the following:

(A) Any lessor or his successor as reversioner of his right to possession on the

expiration of any lease, or any lessee or his successor of his rights in and to any

lease, except as may be permitted under section 5301.56 of the Revised Code;

(B) Any easement or interest in the nature of an easement created or held for any

railroad or public utility purpose;

(C) Any easement or interest in the nature of an easement, the existence of which

is clearly observable by physical evidence of its use;

(D) Any easement or interest in the nature of an easement, or any rights granted,

excepted, or reserved by the instrument creating such easement or interest,

including any rights for future use, if the existence of such easement or interest is

evidenced by the location beneath, upon, or above any part of the land described

in such instrument of any pipe, valve, road, wire, cable, conduit, duct, sewer,

track, pole, tower, or other physical facility and whether or not the existence of

such facility is observable;

(E) Any right, title, estate, or interest in coal, and any mining or other rights

pertinent to or exercisable in connection with any right, title, estate, or interest in

coal;

(F) Any mortgage recorded in conformity with section 1701.66 of the Revised

Code;

(G) Any right, title, or interest of the United States, of this state, or of any political

subdivision, body politic, or agency of the United States or this state.

Page 16: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 10

R.C. 5301.53. There is no exception for oil and gas rights. The very language of the statue should

end the analysis and conclusively mandate that this court hold the MTA applies to oil and gas

mineral rights.

All courts to address the issue are in accord, the MTA applies to severed mineral

interests, including severed royalty interests like the Royalty Interest. Blackstone, 2018-Ohio-

4959 (applying the MTA to a severed royalty interest); Pollock v. Mooney, 7th Dist. Monroe No.

13 MO 9, 2014-Ohio-4435 (same); Warner v. Palmer, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 14 BE 0038, 2017-

Ohio-1080 (applying the MTA to a severed oil and gas interest); Erickson, 2019-Ohio-5430

(same).

Furthermore, the MTA does not require the party seeking extinguishment to take any

action. Evans v. Cormican, 5th Dist. Licking No. 09 CA 76, 2010-Ohio-541 (finding that the

MTA operates, automatically, to remove clouds from title that pre-date the root of title). See

Heifner v. Bradford, 4 Ohio St.3d 49, 446 N.E.2d 440 (1983); see also Collins v. Moran, 7th

Dist. Mahoning No. 02 CA 218, 2004-Ohio-1381. The MTA does not require advance notice to

the interest holder before extinguishment occurs. See id. In essence, the MTA operates “as a 40-

year statute of limitations for bringing claims against a title record.” Collins, 2004-Ohio-1381.

i. The MTA can easily be separately applied to severed mineral

interests and is not precluded by the mere existence of the DMA.

Despite Appellants’ attempt to argue otherwise, the MTA’s text and recent precedent

make clear that the MTA’s extinguishment mechanism applies to severed mineral interests even

though the DMA exists. The most definitive appellate decision examining this issue, with the

exception of the West opinion, was provided in Warner, 2017-Ohio-1080. In Warner, the

Seventh District Court of Appeals was confronted with a claim that “a one-half mineral interest

which was severed from the property” was extinguished under the MTA. Id. at ¶ 3. The surface

Page 17: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 11

owners had brought claims under the 1989 version of the DMA and the MTA. Id. at ¶¶ 1-2. After

analyzing the MTA’s history and this Court’s treatment of the MTA and the DMA in Corban,

the Seventh District held that both statutes apply to severed mineral interests. Id. at ¶¶ 29-34. See

Senterra Ltd. v. Winland, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 18 BE 0051, 2019-Ohio-4387, ¶ 43, modified on

reconsideration sub nom. SENTERRA LTD., Plaintiff- Appellee, v. ALAN T. WINLAND et al., 7th

Dist. Belmont No. 18 BE 0051, 2019-Ohio-5458, ¶ 43 (“While the DMA may be specific as to

minerals and the MTA general, the two are not irreconcilable. For example, the DMA deals with

a 20 year period and abandonment. The MTA is a 40 year period and extinguishment. Effect can

be given to both the DMA and MTA. Therefore, they are not irreconcilable.”).

And the Seventh District provided further detailed analysis on this precise issue in this

case. West, 2019-Ohio-4092, ¶¶ 43-47 (The court summed up this analysis quiet effectively and

succinctly by stating: “The fact that the MTA provides a different and separate procedure for the

exercise of a different statutory right or remedy does not mean it irreconcilably conflicts with the

DMA. They are co-extensive alternatives whose applicability in a particular case depends on the

time passed and the nature of the items existing in the pertinent records.”). The Seventh

District’s opinion was well thought out and supported by numerous points of authority.

The Fifth District has examined this issue in detail and reached the same conclusion.

Erickson, 2019-Ohio-5430, ¶¶ 30-32. The quote from Corban upon which the Fifth District

relied is the death knell for Appellants’ proposition of law – “the Marketable Title Act

extinguished oil and gas rights by operation of law after 40 years from the effective date of the

root of title unless a saving event preserving the interest appeared in the record chain of title…”

Corban, 149 Ohio St.3d 512, ¶ 18 (emphasis added). This Court firmly latched onto the

differences between the MTA and DMA’s mechanisms and used the same as a basis for

Page 18: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 12

concluding the MTA was automatic, whereas the 1989 version of the DMA was not. Id. at ¶ 21.

The only way to get to that conclusion and to continue following the Corban decision and

analysis is to continue to hold that the MTA is separate and unique from the DMA and was not

rendered ineffective by the DMA’s enactment.

Moreover, Warner, West, and Erickson’s analyses and Amicus Curiae’s position align

with the text of the MTA. Section 5301.50 of the Revised Code provides that the MTA’s

extinguishment provisions applies to all interests affecting real property, which must include

severed mineral rights:

Subject to the matters stated in section 5301.49 of the Revised Code, such record

marketable title shall be held by its owner and shall be taken by any person

dealing with the land free and clear of all interests, claims, or charges whatsoever,

the existence of which depends upon any act, transaction, event, or omission that

occurred prior to the effective date of the root of title. All such interests, claims,

or charges, however denominated, whether legal or equitable, present or future,

whether such interests, claims, or charges are asserted by a person sui juris or

under a disability, whether such person is within or without the state, whether

such person is natural or corporate, or is private or governmental, are hereby

declared to be null and void. (Emphasis added.)

Section 5301.48 of the Revised Code also makes clear that all interests, including severed

mineral interests, are subject to the MTA’s extinguishment provisions:

Any person having the legal capacity to own land in this state, who has an

unbroken chain of title of record to any interest in land for forty years or more,

has a marketable record title to such interest as defined in section 5301.47 of the

Revised Code, subject to the matters stated in section 5301.49 of the Revised

Code. (Emphasis added.)

Furthermore, only pure coal rights are excluded from the MTA’s application. R.C. 5301.53(E).

If mineral interests (or royalty interests) were to be excluded from the MTA, then the legislature

would have excluded them under R.C. 5301.53. They did not.

Appellants have not set forth any legitimate reason for the Court to ignore the plain

language of the MTA. As discussed below, they have not really argued that an actual conflict

Page 19: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 13

exists between the MTA and the DMA. Instead, they argue that the MTA cannot apply to

severed mineral rights because the MTA would operate to cause those interests to pass outside

record chain of title. However, this is an argument of pure legal fiction because the MTA

explicitly relies on the record chain of title, i.e. it extinguishes those interests which do not

appear in the record chain for the 40 years after the root of title. As a result, the Court should not

fall for Appellants’ attempt to subvert Ohio law.

The DMA was an addition to the MTA and in no way was intended to supplant the

MTA’s applicability to severed mineral interests. The MTA applies to “all interests” which

encumber title to real property, including severed rights associated with the mineral estate.

Pollock, 2014-Ohio-4435, ¶ 21 (“The MTA does not differentiate between different types of

interests. It applies to all interests.”); Erickson, 2019-Ohio-5430, ¶¶ 31-32; Blackstone v. Moore,

7th Dist. No. 14 MO 0001, 2017-Ohio-5704, 94 N.E.3d 108, ¶¶ 11-13 motion to certify allowed,

7th Dist. Monroe No. 14 MO 00012017-Ohio-7751, and reconsideration denied, 7th Dist.

Monroe No. 14 MO 00012017-Ohio-8159, and cause dismissed, 152 Ohio St.3d 1403, 2018-

Ohio-723, 92 N.E.3d 876 (2018), and appeal allowed, 152 Ohio St.3d 1406, 2018-Ohio-723, 92

N.E.3d 878 (2018), and aff'd, Slip Op. No. 2018-Ohio-4959.

The DMA works parallel to the MTA. And while they have differences, those differences

are not irreconcilable such that a court cannot reasonably apply each to a severed mineral

interest. When a court is confronted with analyzing whether a severed mineral interest is

presently valid under the MTA and the DMA, it must treat the two as separate statutes, with each

having its own set of obligations and analytic points. Tribett v. Shepherd, 2014-Ohio-4320, 20

N.E.3d 365, ¶ 33 (7th Dist.), reversed on other grounds by 2016-Ohio-5821. (“As can be seen,

there are differences between the two statutes.”); Swartz v. Householder, 2014-Ohio-2359, 12

Page 20: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 14

N.E.3d 1243 (7th Dist.), ¶ 12, reversed on other grounds by 2016-Ohio-5817 (finding that the

DMA was an “addition” to the MTA). Therefore, a surface owner may seek relief under both of

the statutes, under separate, alternative analyses.

Finally, the lower appellate decisions discussed above, each of which applied the MTA to

severed mineral interests, make sense considering the specific provisions of the DMA can only

trump the general provisions of the MTA if there is actually a conflict between the statutes. R.C.

1.51; NaphCare, Inc. v. Cty. Council of Summit Cty., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24906, 2010-Ohio-

4458, ¶ 14 (“Thus, the existence of an actual conflict between two statutes is a prerequisite to the

application of the statute. See R.C. 1.51.”). The Seventh District, in Swartz, explicitly

acknowledged that rule of statutory construction when dealing with these two exact statutes.

Swartz, 2014-Ohio-2359, ¶ 20 (“Pursuant to R.C. 1.51, if a general provision conflicts with a

special provision, they shall be construed if possible by giving effect to both, and if the conflict

is irreconcilable, the special prevails as an exception to the general provision…”). There is no

conflict between the statutes because each has its own set of requirements, analytical points, and

termination mechanisms.

And even if Appellants had identified a conflict between the statutes (which as discussed

below they failed to do), the Court would still be required to give effect to both statutes, meaning

the Court must decide that the extinguishment provisions and the abandonment provisions

independently apply to severed mineral interests. Sentinel Sec. Systems v. Medkeff, 36 Ohio

App.3d 86, 88, 521 N.E.2d 7 (9th Dist.1987), citing State, ex rel. Merydith Constr. Co., v. Dean,

95 Ohio St. 108, 116 N.E. 37 (1916) (“All laws enacted by the legislature are presumed to

harmonize with existing statutes on the same subject.”); Summerville v. Forest Park, 128 Ohio

Page 21: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 15

St.3d 221, 2010-Ohio-6280, 943 N.E.2d 522, ¶ 28 (“R.C. 1.51 requires that initially, we attempt

to reconcile the statutes, if possible, to give effect to both.”).

Ultimately, because the Royalty Interest was preserved under the MTA and not

extinguished, the Court need not undertake the analysis discussed above. However, if it did

conduct said analysis there is only one legally supported outcome – the MTA and DMA

independently apply to severed mineral interests and rely upon their own unique facts.

ii. Appellants failed to prove an actual, irreconcilable conflict

between the MTA and DMA.

Appellants’ conflict argument focuses solely on whether there is a conflict (there is no

conflict) and never attempts to reconcile the two statues. For these reasons and others,

Appellants’ conflict argument falls short.

Initially, it must be reiterated that the different mechanisms (MTA – extinguishment and

DMA – abandonment) are not in conflict with one another. Instead, they merely differ from one

another. See Corban, 149 Ohio St.3d 512, ¶ 21. Contrary to what Appellants and their Amici

Curie state, there is no conflict merely because a preservation can be filed under the DMA that

would (if the interest were still valid) preserve the interest from abandonment under the DMA.

There is no conflict because when interests are extinguished under the MTA, any action taken by

the interest holder after the applicable forty year period cannot revive an already extinguished

interest. See R.C. 5301.51. Consequently, it is unclear how any alleged unnecessary action by the

surface owner under the DMA would somehow revive an already extinguished interest. See

Senterra, 2019-Ohio-4387, ¶ 47. Simply put, you cannot preserve what you do not own.

As discussed above, the existence of a conflict between a general and specific statute

does not prove fait accompli for the general statute. Instead, one must still try to reconcile the

statutes and thereby apply both statutes. Because the MTA and DMA can be independently

Page 22: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 16

applied to the unique facts of any given case to determine whether a severed mineral interest is

still valid, any differences between the statues are reconcilable differences. As a result,

Appellants’ proposition of law must be answered in the negative. See Senterra, 2019-Ohio-4387,

¶ 43.

iii. The cases cited by Amicus Curie Ascent Resources et al. do not

support ignoring the express language of the MTA.

Amicus Curie Accent Resources et al. state the MTA and DMA need to be read together,

but in reality, what they are asking is for the Court to ignore the MTA altogether. As set forth

above, it is easy to reconcile the two statutes with the MTA extinguishing interests if certain

factors are met for a forty-year period, and alternatively, if an interest was not extinguished

under the MTA because a forty-year period could not be established (like in Heifner), then the

surface owner can still try to statutorily abandoned the interest by following the steps set forth in

the DMA. Likewise, if an interest has not been extinguished under the MTA, then the severed

mineral interest holder can file a claim to preserve his/her interest in response to any attempted

DMA action. If an interest was already extinguished under the MTA, then any act of

preservation under the MTA or DMA is a nullity because you cannot preserve what you no

longer own and an extinguished interest cannot be revived. R.C. 5301.49(D) (any “recording

shall not revive or give validity to any interest which has been extinguished prior to the time of

the recording by the operation of section 5301.50 of the Revised Code.”).

Amicus Curie Accent Resources et al. cite three cases for their erroneous contention that

the DMA negates the express language of the MTA applying to all interests. However, none of

these cases actually involve the Court completely ignoring the express language of statutes.

First, they cite State v. Moaning, 1996-Ohio-413, 76 Ohio St. 3d 126, 666 N.E.2d 1115,

for the proposition that the MTA and DMA need to be read together. Moaning involved whether

Page 23: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 17

a defendant's prior conviction for attempted drug abuse made it illegal for him to possess a

weapon. The issue was whether a conviction for attempted drug abuse falls within the

proscriptions of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), which provides:

“(A) Unless relieved from disability as provided in section 2923.14 of the Revised

Code, no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm or

dangerous ordnance, if any of the following apply:

“ * * *

“(3) Such person is under indictment for or has been convicted of any offense

involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or

trafficking in any drug of abuse, or has been adjudged a juvenile delinquent for

commission of any such offense[.]”

Id. at 127. Since (A)(3) does not specifically list “attempted” drug abuse, the Court looked to the

Legislative Service Commission's comment to R.C. 2923.13, as enacted by Am.Sub. H.B. No.

511, which stated it applied to “any drug abuse offense” and then noted the Revised Code

broadly defines “drug abuse offense” in R.C. 2925.01(H) to include within the definition the

“attempt to commit” any drug abuse offense otherwise referred to in R.C. 2925.01(H). Id. at 128.

The Court used a definition in one statute to interpret language in another statute – not to ignore

the express language in a statute altogether.

Likewise, State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463, 132 N.E.2d 191 (1956),

involved a proceeding in mandamus to require the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court to

remove a judge from a Court of Common Pleas. At issue was whether the interpretation of R.C.

2701.03 required a judge to be automatically removed if an affidavit of prejudice was filed.

Looking at R.C. 141.08 (“in determining the disqualification or disability of any judge of the

court of common pleas or of the court of appeals”) and Section 3, Article IV of the Constitution

of Ohio (“the chief justice of the supreme court of the state shall pass upon the disqualification or

disability of any judge of the court of common pleas, and he may assign any judge to any county

Page 24: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 18

to hold court therein.”), in conjunction with R.C. 2701.03, the Court concluded it is manifest that

the question of bias or prejudice on the part of a Common Pleas judge is to be heard and passed

on by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and therefore, removal was not automatic. Id. at

466. Again the Court construed two statutes together to interpret them, not to negate a statute

completely.

Lastly, they cite State ex rel. Elliott Co. v. Connar, 123 Ohio St. 310, 310, 175 N.E. 200

(1931), a mandamus action concerning bidding for a construction contract. The realtor wanted to

compel the superintendent of the department of public works to accept the bid of relator and

award to it the contracts since more than 30 days had passed and they were the lowest bidder. Id.

at 311. General Code Section 2319 provided that “[a]fter investigation which shall be completed

within thirty days, the contract shall be awarded by such owner to the lowest bidder, or bidders.”

However, General Code Section 2320 provided “[i]f in the opinion of such owner, the

acceptance of the lowest bid or bids is not for the best interests of the state, with the written

consent of the state building commission, they may accept, in their discretion, another proposal

so opened or reject all proposals, and advertise for other bids.” Id. at 312. Since the

superintendent did not have a clear legal duty to award the contract to the lowest bidder, the writ

was denied.

None of these cases stand for the proposition the Court can ignore plain and unambiguous

language in the MTA stating it applies to all interests. Exceptions to the MTA were specifically

laid out by the legislature in R.C. 5301.53. If Appellants and their amicus are unhappy with those

exceptions, then they should take it up with the legislature. However, it is not the province of this

Court to add exceptions through judicial action when the legislature did not see fit to add oil and

Page 25: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 19

gas as excepted from the MTA – and actually specifically amended the statute to include oil and

gas under the MTA in 1973.

C. Appellants’ due process argument was waived and/or is not supported by the

facts.

As to Appellants’ due process argument at page 13 of their brief, said argument was

either waived or falls well short of proving an actual due process violation. First, it does not

appear Appellants raised such an argument below. See West, 2019-Ohio-4092, ¶ 15. As a result,

they appear to have waived the argument for purposes of this appeal. Mindlin v. Zell, 10th Dist.

Franklin No. 11AP-983, 2012-Ohio-3543, ¶ 18, quoting State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co. v.

Foreman, 79 Ohio St.3d 78, 679 N.E.2d 706 (1997). See Cawley JV, L.L.C. v. Wall St.

Recycling, L.L.C., 2015-Ohio-1846, 35 N.E.3d 30, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.).

Even if Appellants had not waived a due process argument, they could not and have not

met their significantly high burden in proving application of the MTA violates their due process

rights. Statutes are presumed constitutional. Dayton v. State, 151 Ohio St.3d 168, 2017-Ohio-

6909, 87 N.E.3d 176, ¶ 12 (2017). The party challenging the statute’s constitutionality must

establish beyond a reasonable doubt the statute is unconstitutional. Id., quoting Wilson v. Kasich,

134 Ohio St.3d 221, 2012-Ohio-5367, 981 N.E.2d 814.

Ignoring the fact the MTA does not appear to have extinguished the Royalty Interest,

even if it had, Appellants were given over 40 years to preserve the Royalty Interest and as a

result, there are no due process concerns. The MTA was amended in 1973 to apply to severed

mineral interests, whereas before it had not applied to the same. Warner, 2017-Ohio-1080, ¶ 32.

The Ohio Legislature did not simply snap its proverbial fingers and cause mineral interests to be

extinguished by the MTA; instead, it gave all mineral owners a three-year grace period to take

Page 26: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 20

simple steps to preserve their interests. Id. Because the extinguishment relied upon the mineral

owners’ future inaction, there are no due process concerns.

In State ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, this Court addressed this very

issue in the context of adverse possession. 17 Ohio St.3d 151, 152, 478 N.E. 2d 773 (1985). Like

Appellants in this case, the prior record holder in A.A.A. Investments alleged the taking of their

private property through adverse possession violated certain constitutional protections. This

Court held, like the MTA, where title ownership of an absent inactive owner lapses and vests

with the adverse possessor, the adverse possessor is thereafter maintaining its possession, and not

taking property. In reaching this conclusion, this Court expressly relied on the United States

Supreme Court holding in Texaco v. Short, 454 U.S. 516, 102 S.Ct. 781 (1982):

In the case of adverse possession, property is not taken. Rather, once the statutory

period enunciated in R.C. 2305.04 has expired, the former titleholder has lost his

claim of ownership and the adverse possessor is thereafter maintaining its

possession, not taking property. Such a conclusion is consistent with results in

other jurisdictions which have addressed this challenge as well as the United

States Supreme Court's recent pronouncement in Texaco, Inc. v. Short (1982), 454

U.S. 516, 102 S.Ct. 781, 70 L.Ed.2d 738. Texaco concerned the issue of whether

an interest in mineral rights had lapsed or had been taken without just

compensation by the state government in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court stated, inter alia, “It is the owner's failure to make any use of the

property-and not the action of the State-that causes the lapse of the property right;

there is no ‘taking’ that requires compensation.” Id. at 530, 102 S.Ct. at 792. See,

also, Board of Commrs. v. Flickinger (Colo.1984), 687 P.2d 975; Ashland v.

Hardesty (1975), 23 Or.App. 523, 543 P.2d 41; Dunnick v. Stockgrowers Bank of

Marmouth (1974), 191 Neb. 370, 215 N.W.2d 93; Kentucky Dept. of Parks v.

Stephens (Ky.1966), 407 S.W.2d 711.

State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53.

As the United States Supreme Court stated in Texaco:

We have no doubt that, just as a State may create a property interest that is

entitled to constitutional protection, the State has the power to condition the

permanent retention of that property right on the performance of reasonable

conditions that indicate a present intention to retain the interest.

Page 27: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 21

From an early time, this Court has recognized that States have the power to permit

unused or abandoned interests in property to revert to another after the passage of

time. In Hawkins v. Barney's Lessee, 5 Pet. 457, 8 L.Ed. 190, the Court upheld a

Kentucky statute that prevented a landowner from recovering property on which

the defendant had resided for more than seven years under a claim of right. The

Court stated:

“Such laws have frequently passed in review before this Court; and occasions

have occurred, in which they have been particularly noticed as laws not to be

impeached on the ground of violating private right. What right has any one to

complain, when a reasonable time has been given him, if he has not been vigilant

in asserting his rights?” Id., at 466.

Texaco, 454 U.S. at 526. The United States Supreme Court upheld the power of the states “to

condition the retention of a property right upon the performance of an act within a limited period

of time. In each instance, as a result of the failure of the property owner to perform the statutory

condition, an interest in fee was deemed as a matter of law to be abandoned and to lapse.” Id. at

529.

Each of the actions required by the MTA to avoid an extinguishment of a severed mineral

interest furthers a legitimate state goal. As the United States Supreme Court noted, certainly the

state may encourage owners of mineral interests to develop the potential of those interests, the

fiscal interest in collecting property taxes is manifest, and the requirement that a mineral owner

file a public statement of claim furthers both of these goals by facilitating the identification and

location of mineral owners, from whom developers may acquire operating rights and from whom

the county may collect taxes. Id. “The State surely has the power to condition the ownership of

property on compliance with conditions that impose such a slight burden on the owner while

providing such clear benefits to the State.” Id. at 529-30.

The extinguishment of the severed mineral interest holder’s title is the consequence of his

own neglect, not state action. And at least one appellate court has previously upheld the MTA

upon a due process challenge. Pinkney v. Southwick Investments, L.L.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

Page 28: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 22

85074, 2005-Ohio-4167, ¶ 38 (“In the instant case, as applied to the Pinkney Group, the MTA

provides multiple specific procedural steps which could have preserved the interests upon which

it predicates its claims. The failure to comply with such procedural requirements does not render

the MTA unconstitutional.”). Appellants have not made a sufficient showing that the MTA’s

existence and application violates their due process rights.

D. Appellants’ partial quote from Corban actually supports Amicus Curiae.

Appellants also fail to examine and apply the entirety of the Corban decision.

Throughout their brief, Appellants claim Corban somehow held that the DMA was the sole

method for reuniting severed mineral rights with the surface estate. This is undercut by the very

text of Corban. This Court acknowledged that the DMA was “a method” for terminating

abandoned severed mineral interests. Corban, 149 Ohio St.3d 512, ¶ 35. The Court did not say,

or even suggest, it was the sole method for terminating those interests. And as detailed above, it

could not have reached such a conclusion given the plain language of the MTA.

E. The single-Justice concurrence in Blackstone has no bearing on the question

before the Court and the legislative history actually supports application of

the MTA to mineral interests.

Furthermore, Appellants’ citation to the concurrence in Blackstone, 2018-Ohio-4959,

should fall on deaf ears. The single-Justice concurring opinion’s reasoning and its proposed

outcome has already been rejected repeatedly. See, e.g., Stalder v. Bucher, 7th Dist. Monroe No.

17 MO 0017, 2019-Ohio-936, ¶ 11-21 (finding the same argument meritless); Warner, 2017-

Ohio-1080. Moreover, as discussed above, the concurrence’s reasoning is directly contradicted

by the MTA’s text which says it applies to ALL interests, and has a specific section excluding

certain interests. Additionally, legislative history, which is discussed within the Blackstone

concurrence, is irrelevant in the face of an unambiguous statute. R.C. 1.49 (providing that a court

may consider extrinsic evidence, including legislative history, only if a statute is ambiguous). As

Page 29: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 23

a result, Appellants’ suggestion that the Court should examine the legislative history of the MTA

by bootstrapping its analysis to the Blackstone concurrence should be dismissed. See Griffith v.

City of Cleveland, 128 Ohio St.3d 35, 2010-Ohio-4905, 941 N.E.2d 1157 (2010); see also

Muskingum Watershed Conservancy Dist. v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Services, 10th Dist. Franklin No.

96APE03-307, 1996 WL 532182 (Sept. 19, 1996).

In any event, the legislative history of the MTA and DMA shows the legislature

specifically wanted the MTA to apply to mineral interests when it amended the statue in 1973 to

specifically apply to oil and gas minerals, and the addition of the DMA did not change that.

The fact that the Ohio legislature later created a separate abandonment statute (the DMA)

for landowners to attempt to use when the MTA had not already extinguished said interest

because they were unhappy with the MTA’s ability to extinguish all severed mineral interests

does not mean they intended to remove the MTA’s applicability to those severed mineral

interests for wish it would extinguish. The legislature wanted to eliminate more severed mineral

interests, not less. The Proponent Testimony on behalf of the DMA in the legislative history

expressly noted the DMA would be an “additional mechanism” for the elimination of dormant

mineral interests, and that “when used in conjunction with the Marketable Title Act, is effective

in accomplishing this goal.” See Fiscal Note Sub. S.B. 223, pp. 48-50, a copy of which is

attached hereto as App. Ex. 1, stating in pertinent part:

As a general principle, minerals are not deemed to be capable of being abandoned

by a non-user unless they are actually possessed. Ohio is in the majority of

jurisdictions which hold that a severed interest in undeveloped minerals does not

constitute possession. Michigan's legislators recognized the importance of

including minerals in those defects and errors which should be eliminated by

operation of time and non-use. The Michigan Act and the Model Act provide an

additional mechanism for the elimination of dormant mineral interests

which, when used in conjunction with the Marketable Title Act, is effective in

accomplishing this goal. Under the Michigan Act, owners of severed mineral

interests are required to file notice of their claims of interest within 20 years after

Page 30: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 24

the last use of the interest, a three-year grace period was provided for initial filing

under the Michigan Act. Any severed mineral interest deemed abandoned or

extinguished as a result of the application of the Michigan Act vests in the owner

of the surface.

The major distinction between the proposed bill for consideration by the

Ohio legislature and the Michigan Act is that the Michigan Act applies only

to interests in oil and gas. It is apparent from the 1974 amendment of the

Ohio Marketable Title Act that the Ohio Legislature has deemed it advisable

for the Marketable Title Act to apply to all mineral interests except coal. The

proposed Ohio Dormant Mineral Act has been drafted to conform to the Ohio

Marketable Title Act and apply to any mineral interest except an interest in coal

as defined by §5301. 53 (E) of the Marketable Title Act. (Emphasis added.).

“Additional” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “more than is usual or expected : ADDED.”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/additional?src=search-dict-box (last visited April

2, 2020). It is not a substitution or replacement. Likewise, “in conjunction with” is defined by

Merriam-Webster as “in combination with : together with.” https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/in%20conjunction%20with (last visited April 2, 2020). The legislative

history shows the DMA was to work together with the MTA to accomplish the goal of

eliminating old severed mineral interests.

In fact, the plain language of the Revised Code undermines any argument to the contrary.

As previously discussed, the plain language of the MTA, specifically R.C. 5301.48 and 5301.50,

makes clear the MTA’s provisions apply to any and all interests affecting real property. The

Legislature did not amend those provisions to exclude severed mineral rights from their purview.

In fact, it is the public policy of the state, as enacted in both the MTA and DMA, to reunite old

severed mineral interests back with the surface owner. And this extinguishment of interests is to

be liberally construed to affect the result of eliminating old interests that predate the root of title.

See R.C. 5301.55 (stating the MTA “shall be liberally construed to effect the legislative purpose

of simplifying and facilitating land title transactions by allowing persons to rely on a record

chain of title as described in section 5301.48 of the Revised Code, subject only to such

Page 31: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 25

limitations as appear in section 5301.49 of the Revised Code.”) (Emphasis added). Nothing in

section 5301.49 removes oil or gas from the MTA’s purview.

As a result, Appellants cannot reasonably argue the Court is entitled to ignore the

provisions contained within R.C. 5301.48 through R.C. 5301.59, all of which clearly cover the

Royalty Interest.

F. The MTA relies upon the record chain of title and as a result, Appellants’

argument about severed minerals passing outside the record of chain of title

is erroneous.

Appellants’ claim that severed mineral interests pass outside the record chain of title

under the MTA, a claim repeated throughout their brief, creates a strawman to justify their

ignoring of how the MTA’s extinguishment mechanism actually works. Appellants’ strawman is

the claim that severed mineral interests pass outside record chain of title. In actuality, those

interests, like all interests extinguished by the MTA, are explicitly terminated because of and

based on the record chain of title.

As this Court acknowledged in Corban, the MTA:

[E]xtinguished oil and gas rights by operation of law after 40 years from the

effective date of the root of title unless a saving event preserving the interest

appeared in the record chain of title—i.e., the interest was specifically identified

in the muniments of title in a subsequent title transaction, the holder recorded a

notice claiming the interest, or the interest “[arose] out of a title transaction which

has been recorded subsequent to the effective date of the root of title.” R.C.

5301.48 and 5301.49.

Corban, 149 Ohio St.3d 512, ¶ 18. Thus, the MTA relies explicitly upon what is contained

within the record chain of title when determining whether the pre-root interests are extinguished.

One would identify the root of title and then examine the record chain of title in the 40 years

thereafter to determine whether the pre-root interest has been extinguished. If no preserving

event exists, then the current property owner may rely upon the record chain of title, meaning

those interests not within the record chain are no longer valid. There is no passing of title outside

Page 32: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 26

the record chain of title, but instead there is extinguishment based on the record chain. Again,

this is the purpose and reason for the MTA, to extinguish properly recorded and filed interests

based on the dates on which documents creating or preserving interest were filed. The strength or

legitimacy of the interest is irrelevant.

Appellants’ arguments are about the MTA generally and not just as applied to severed

mineral interests. The MTA extinguishes all pre-root interests in the same manner and as such,

does not have some sort of unique animus towards severed mineral interests. The MTA

essentially requires the examination of the entire chain of title from the root of title deed forward

in time, regardless of whether the pre-root interest is a mineral interest. The pre-root interest is

extinguished as a matter of law if it is not preserved during the relevant 40-year period, much

like an accrued cause of action that is not asserted during the applicable statute of limitations

period. This is a universal application and does not work differently with severed mineral

interests.

Appellants’ failure to recognize how the MTA works with all pre-root interests resulted

in their erecting a faulty example on page eight of their brief. First, the example is inapplicable to

this case because a notice of preservation for the Royalty Interest was filed in the 40 years after

Appellees’ root of title. Moreover, the oil and gas interest identified within the fictitious mineral

chain of title would have been preserved under the MTA because there were title transactions for

the mineral interest in the 40 years after each of the potential roots of title. A title examiner

would see there was a severance in 1976 and examine the chain of title for those interest holders

moving forward. That examination would locate the numerous title transactions and as a result,

the surface owner could not claim the record chain of title does not contain the severed mineral

interest and thus, there can be no extinguishment. Appellants’ hypothetical scenario was

Page 33: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 27

explicitly rejected by this Court in Heifner v. Bradford, 4 Ohio St.3d 49, 446 N.E.2d 440 (1983).

So there is no conflict.

The separate chain of title for a severed mineral interest in Heifner did not remove the

MTA’s applicability; instead, the separate chain of title acknowledged that one must examine the

full chain of title for the 40-year-period:

Appellants' root of title is the 1916 deed from Elvira Sprague and her husband to

Fred H. Waters which reserved to the grantors the oil and gas rights in the land.

Appellees' root of title is the 1936 conveyance from Fred H. Waters and his wife

to Charles B. Waters, Emma M. Waters, Sarah K. Waters, and William H. Waters

which failed to mention the reservation of oil and gas rights. Consequently, unless

subject to R.C. 5301.49, appellees hold a marketable record title to the oil and gas

rights, as well as title to the surface land, by virtue of having an “unbroken chain”

of record title for over forty years which extinguishes prior claims and interests,

including that of appellants. R.C. 5301.47(A) and 5301.48.

The Act defines a “title transaction” to include the passage of “title by will or

descent.” Thus, the 1957 conveyance of the oil and gas rights which passed under

the terms of Elvira Sprague's will must be considered a “title transaction” under

R.C. 5301.49(D).

Appellees argue that we should construe R.C. 5301.49(D) to require that a title

transaction under that section arise from the same chain of title as that under

which there is claimed to be a marketable record title. For the reasons to follow,

we feel the proper construction should be otherwise.

***

Hence, we are satisfied that R.C. 5301.49(D) ought to be construed in the manner

that Simes and Taylor, as drafters of Section 2(d) of the Model Act, intended.4

Accordingly, a “marketable title,” as defined in R.C. 5301.47(A) and 5301.48, is

subject to an interest arising out of a “title transaction” under R.C. 5301.49(D)

which may be part of an independent chain of title. Further, the effect of R.C.

5301.49(D) is identical to that obtained by the filing of a preservation notice.

R.C. 5301.51 provides for the preservation of interests by the filing of a notice

of claim during the forty-year period. As a result, the recording of a “title

transaction” under R.C. 5301.47(F) and 5301.49(D) is equivalent to the filing of a

notice of claim during the forty-year period as specified in R.C. 5301.51 and

5301.52.6

Thus, the 1957 conveyance under the terms of Elvira Sprague's will was a “title

transaction” within the meaning of R.C. 5301.49(D), and appellants' interest was

Page 34: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 28

not extinguished by operation of the Marketable **444 Title Act.7 Accordingly,

the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed.

Heifner, 4 Ohio St.3d at 51–53 (emphasis added). Contrary to Appellants erroneous conflict

argument, Appellants actually prevail under Heifner because the Royalty Interest was the subject

of a filed notice of preservation during the 40-year-period. Id. (“Further, the effect of R.C.

5301.49(D) is identical to that obtained by the filing of a preservation notice. R.C. 5301.51

provides for the preservation of interests by the filing of a notice of claim during the forty-year

period.”).

In addition, Appellants’ discussion of the different preserving methods under the DMA

and MTA at page 11 of their brief is irrelevant to the issues before the Court. Each statute

permits continuous and perpetual preservation through simple actions. A court confronted with

determining whether a severed mineral interest has been abandoned under the DMA or

extinguished under the MTA would apply the statutes separate and apart from one another.

Again, there are differences between the statutes, but differences do not equate to an

irreconcilable conflict. Indeed, Appellants’ discussion of a claim to preserve under the DMA

which is filed during the 60-day period provided within the DMA, but after the interest was

already extinguished under the MTA, identifies a difference between the statutes, not a conflict.

Under Appellants’ example, the interest would indeed not be abandoned under the DMA and

there would be no statutory marginal notation of abandonment. However, that filing could not

have any impact on the interest’s validity under the MTA, because if it had already been

extinguished as a matter of law, it cannot be revived through the subsequent filing.

In the end, Appellants have failed to prove the existence of an irreconcilable conflict

between the MTA and DMA. The DMA works parallel to the MTA. And while they have

differences, those differences are not irreconcilable such that a court cannot reasonably apply

Page 35: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 29

each to a severed mineral interest. When a court is confronted with analyzing whether a severed

mineral interest is presently valid under the MTA and the DMA, it must treat the two as separate

statutes, with each having its own set of obligations and analytic points.

Finally, one must also remember that this is purely an academic exercise in this case

because the Royalty Interest was preserved under the MTA. Thus, one need not answer the larger

question presented by Appellants’ proposition of law in order to give Appellants what they want

in this case – confirmation that the Royalty Interest was not previously extinguished by the

MTA. As a result, the Court should refrain from answering Appellants’ proposition of law.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court can and should dismiss this appeal and remand the case

to the trial court for further proceedings.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gregory W. Watts

Gregory W. Watts (0082127)* and

*Counsel of Record

Matthew W. Onest (0087907), of

KRUGLIAK, WILKINS, GRIFFITHS

& DOUGHERTY CO., L.P.A.

4775 Munson Street NW/P.O. Box 36963

Canton, Ohio 44735-6963

Phone: (330) 497-0700/Fax: (330) 497-4020

[email protected]; [email protected];

Counsel for Amici Curiae, Cassandra Ridenour,

Senterra, Ltd., David and Julia Cain, Peppertree

Farms, LLC, Paines Run, and Paul E. Morrison

and Vesta G. Morrison, Individually and as Co-

Trustees

Page 36: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

02596964-1 / 25851.06-0001 30

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via email this 3rd day of April,

2020, to:

Charles H. Bean

113 West Main Street

P.O. Box 96

St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950

Phone: (740) 695-0532

Fax: (740) 695-8039

[email protected]

Counsel for Appellants

Ryan M. Regel

Yoss Law Office

122 N. Main Street

P.O. Box 271

Woodsfield, Ohio 43793

Phone: (740) 472-0707

Fax: (740) 472-0770

[email protected]

Counsel for Appellees

/s/ Gregory W. Watts

Gregory W. Watts (0082127)*

*Counsel of Record

Matthew W. Onest (0087907), of

KRUGLIAK, WILKINS, GRIFFITHS

& DOUGHERTY CO., L.P.A.

Counsel for Amici Curiae

Page 37: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As
mwo
Typewriter
APPENDIX 1
Page 38: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

¦£"

a.

5

\

C

!

:

Sub- S.B. 223 DATE November 18, 1988BILL

As Reported by House Civil .andCommercial Law t ' Sen. CuppSTATUS

iFund & Time Revenues Expenditures Appropriations

State and Political

Subdivisions (owning land,but not the mineral rights)

ijPotential

increase inasset value

-0- -0-I. - FY 1991 an,d

annually thereafter

This bill would make changes in mineral rights law.?

EXPLANATION OF ESTIMATE!r

The bill would allow non-coal mineral rights to revert to the surface •

landowner if the mineral right holder does nothing to the rights for 20 years.

To extend their . rights, a mineral right holder would simply have to file an

extension with the local county recorder.

The bill would mainly affect • properties where the mineral rights

ownership has been lost, forgotten, or ignored for a long period of time. To* the extent that the state owns such property, "after a three-year grace period,

the state (or any governmental unit, including the federal government) canfile £ claim for affected mineral rights through the county recorder's office.

Owning the mineral rights would presumably increase the value of the property,

Since the state would have to issue a permit for mineral rights holders toextract from state land anyway, it is unlikely that they would need to go

through this process. However, it might be something that a political

subdivision might choose to do.

\

FR

t

Page 39: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

'SAs Introduced 1.4

117th General Assembly,

• Regular' Session

•1987-1988

1.6' g

S. B. No. 223 1.7*.r

! 1.8

MESSRS. '.CUPP-SCHAFRATK-NETTLE 1.10 .

; i.ii

A BILL . " 1.12

To .amend sections 317.18, 317.20, 317 .201, and 1..14

5301. S3, to enact new section 5301.56, and to 1.15

repeal ' section 530.1.56 of the Revised Code to 1.16

provide a 'method for the. terminatidn of dormant .

/-•

• ;

1 . mineral estates and . the' vest ing of .their title in 1.17

..the surface owners, in the absence of certain 1.18

within

i- '

the .preceding 20 years, 1.19

including the' filing by the holder, oof the mineral \1.20

occurrences

interest of a 'notice, of claim.

BE IT .ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:

Section

1.23

That sections 317.18, 317.20, 317.201, and 1.25

5301.53 be amended and "new section 5301.56 of the 'Revised Code be 1.26

1 ¦

enacted to read as follows: 1,27

At the beginning of each day's business the 1.30y .Sec. 317^.18.

county recorder shall make and keep up general alphabetical 1.31

' indexes, direct and reverse; -of all the names of both parties to 1.33 .

' all instruments theretofore received for record- by him.

volume and page where such instrument is recorded may be omitted 1.35

until it is actually recorded if the file number is entered in 1.36

place of the volume or page7-bate-stteh-£sr£e-nttmbes,~may-be-em±fcfeed 2.1

feem-ftny~index-voittne-irs-use-en-Aprti-2i7-i8967-if—the—form—o€ , 2.3

the-tndex-voittme-is-net-adapted-to-eneeting-the-f iie-namber . The 2 . 5

indexes shall show the kind of instrument, the range, township, 2.7

and section or the survey number and number of acres, or the 2.8

permanent parcel number provided for under section 319,28 of the 2.9

Revised Code, or the lot and sublot number and the part thereof, 2.10* ^ ' '

all as the case requires, of each tract, parcel, or lot of land 2.12

described in any such instrument of writing. The name of each 2.13

The 1.34 f

. *

[

;•

Page 40: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

12 .•i

3

gran-tor shall be. entered in the direct index , under the

appropriate letter, followed on the same -line by the name of the ;2.14

grantee, or, if there is more than one grantee, by the name of 2.15

•the first grantee followed by "and others" or their equivalent, 2"!16" i '

The name of each grantee shall be entered in the reverse index 2.1?

under the appropriate ' letter, followed on the..same line by -the 2.19

name of the grantor, 'or, if there is more 'than one grantor, , by 2;20

, the .name of thfe first grantor followed by "and others" or their

equivalent.

As to notices of claims filed in accordance with sections 2.22

.5301.51 and^ 5301. 52x AND 5301.56 of -the Revised Code there shall 2.24

be entered in the reverse index under the appropriate letter the 2.25

name of each claimant, followed on the same line by the name of 2.26

the present owner of title against whom the claim is asserted, if 2.27 •. -

'the notice contains the name of the present owner;- or, if • the 2.28

notice contains the names of more than one such owner, there 2.30

shall be entered the name of the first owner followed by "and 2.32

" Others" or their equivalent.

1 In all cases of deeds, mortgages, or other instruments of • 2.34

writing made by any sheriff, master commissioner, ..marshal, 2.35

auditor;, executor, administrator, trustee, or other officer, for 2.36* >; ' . • ' ^

the sale, conveyance, or encumbrance of any lands,a tenements, or 3.1

hereditaments, and recorded in the- recorder's office, the '3.2

recorder shall index the parties to such instrument under their 3.3

appropriate letters, respectively, as follows*

(A) The names of the persons represented by such officer 3.S

as owners of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments described in 3.7

any such instruments; .

< B) The official designation of the officer by whom such 3.8

instrument of writing was made;

(C) The individual names of the officers by whom such 3.10

instrument of writing was made.

' in all cases of instruments filed in accordance with 3.12

sections 5311.01 to 5311.22, of the Revised Code, the name of each 3,14

owner shall be entered in the direct index, under the appropriate 3.15

1 .

::

. 1

i

2.21

;

f

j

2.33

3.4

!3.9

i3.11

«

Page 41: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

3

¦iletter, followed on the same line by the name of the condominium 3.16

• property, and- the name of the condominium property shall be 3.17

entered in the reverse index under the. appropriate letter

followed; on the same (line by the name of . the owner of the 3.18

property, or, if the .instrument contains the names of more than 3.19

one owner there shall be entered the name of the first owner .3.20

followed by "and others" or its equivalent.

. Any general alphabetical index commenced—aftee-dttne~?r 3.22

. Idii7 shall be COMMENCED in conformity to this section, and 3.23

whenever, in the opinion of the board of county commissioners, it 3.25

becomes necessary to transcribe, on account of its worn out or 3.26

incomplete condition, any' volume 6f such AN index now i,n use, 3.29

• such volume shall be revised and transcribed to conform with this 3.30

section; except that in counties having a sectional index in 3.31

conformity with section 317.20 of the Revised Code,

transcript shall be only a copy of the original. .

When, in the opinion of the board of county 3.36

commissioners sectional indexes are needed, and it so directs, in 4.1

addition to the alphabetical indexes provided for in section 4.2

317.18 of the Revised Code, the board may provide for making, in 4*3

books prepared for that purpose, sectional indexes to fhe records 4.4

of all real estate in the county, beginning with some designated 4.5

year and continuing through such period of years As it specified,,

by placing under the heads of the original surveyed sections or 4,7

3.21

!i

rsuch 3.33

3.34

Sec. 317.20.

A¦ .6

surveys, > or parts of a section or survey, squares, subdivisions, 4.8

or the permanent parcel numbers provided for> under section 319.28 4.1tf

of the Revised Code, or lots, on the left-hand page; or on the 4.12

upper portion of such page of the index book, the following;

(A) The name of the grantor;

(B) -Next to the right, the name of the grantee;

(C) The number-and page of the record where the instrument 4.18

4.19

4.13

4.14

4.16

is found recorded;

The character of the instrument, to be followed by a 4.21

pertinent description of the property conveyed by the deed, 4.22

lease, or assignment of lease;

(D)

Page 42: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

• ¦ ..

'A4- 1

(E) On the opposite page, or on the lower portion of the 4.23. _ •' ( ( '

same page., beginning at the bottom, in like mariner, all the 4.24• - . . • . -

mortgages, liens, notices as provided foe in sections 5301.51 4.25

and,. 530;1.52, AND 5301.56 of the Revised Code, or' other 4.27

i encumbrances affecting such real, estate.

¦?

>

i-

-4,29

' The - compensation for the services , rendered under this 4.30

section shall be paid from the; general revenue fund . of • the 4.31's

county, and' no additional levy( Shall be made in consequence of 4.32

such services. In the event that the board decides to have such ,4.33- • $

sectional index made it shall advertise for three, consecutive 4.34,

weeks in one newspaper' of general circulation in the county, for 4.35 ,

sealed .proposals to do such'. Work 'as provided in th.is section., and .4.36

shall let' the work to the lowest and best bidder, and shall 5.1

require him" "'to- .'give bond" for the faithful-performance of the 5.2

¦ contract, in 'such sum as the board fixes, and such work shall be 5.3

to' -the acceptance, of the bureau of supervision and $.4

inspection^, of public offices upon allowance by such., board.

board may reject any and all bids for 'the work, provided that no 5.6

mo're than five-cents shall be paid, for each'' entry of. each tract 5..?

or lot- of land.

When

. .. , . . ..

keep up the indexes described in this section.

V

V

;

!

¦(

I/

done

if•The 5.5;

.!

i5.8 -

brought up and completed, the county recorder shall 5.9

• 5.10

Sec. 317.201. The county recorder shall maintain a book. to Sill

be known as, the "Notice Index." Separate pages of th$ book shall 5.12. ¦ : • . ' ¦ ~ ' i 1 '¦ . • - '¦ : *

be headed by the original survey sections or surveys,| or parts of 5.14

a section or survey,' squares, subdivisions, or the permanent 5.15

parcel numbers provided for under section 319.28 of the Revised 5.16.

Code, or. lots. In this book there shall be entered the notices 5.17

for preservation of claims presented for recording in conformity 5.18

with sections- 5301.51 and, 5301*52, AND 5301.56 of the Revised 5.20

Code. In designated columns there shall be entered on the ,'left- 5.21

hand page: . . .

/

¦!

;

:

(A) The name of each claimant?

(B) Next to the right, the name of each owner of title?

5.23;

5.25

¦1

Page 43: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

5

The deed book number arid page where the instrument 5.2?

containing the claim has been recorded?

(C)

5.28

< D) The type of claim asserted; and on the opposite page 5.30

on the corresponding line a- pertinent description of the property 5.31

affected as appears in such notice. 5.32

The provisions of sections 5301.47 to 5.35

5301.56 of the Revised Code- shall not be applied TO BAR OR 6.1

EXTINGUISH ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

?©-bar~eny ANY lessor or his successor as reversioner 6.4

of his right to possession on the expiration of any lease, or any 6.5

lessee or his successor of his tights in and to any leasej_ EXCEPT 6'. 7

AS MAY BE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 5301.56 OF THE REVISED CODE;

fo-^bar-or -extinguish-any .ANY easement or interest in 6.10

the nature of 'an easement created or held for any railroad or 6.11

public utility purpose;

Sec.. 5301.53.

6.2

(A)

ii 6.8

?!(B)?[•

6.12

To—bar-oe-exfcingttish-eny ANY easement or interest in 6,14

t^e nature of an easement,' the existence of which is clearly 6.15*

observable by physical evidence of its use;

?©—bar-er-extisgaish-any ANY easement or interest in 6.19

the nature of an easement, or any. rights granted, excepted, or 6,20 ;

reserved by the instrument creating such easement or„ interest, 6.21

including any rights for future use, if the existence of , such 6.22 -

easement or interest is evidenced by the location beneath, upon, t 6.23

or above any part of the land described in such instrument of any 6.26

pipe, valve, road, wire, cable, conduit, duct, sewer, track,

pole, tower, or other physical facility and whether or not the, 6.27

existence of such facility is observable; „. ' ' .r:

Te-bar-or-exfeingaish-any ANY right, fcitle, estate, or 6.30

interest in coal, and any mining or other rights pertinent 6.31

thereto or exercisable in connection therewith;

*(C)

6.17

<D)

II :

•ft

6.28

(E)l

i.

•> ;6.32

?©—bar—or—extinguish—any ANY mortgage recorded in

Conformity with sfction 1701.66 of the Revised Code; .

"(G) To-bar-er-extinguish-afty ANY right, title, or interest

of the United States, or of the-state-©f-6hi© THIS STATE, or any

political subdivision, body politic, or agency thereof.

<F) 6.33

6.34

0 :

6.36

7.2

. r7.3

L

Page 44: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

6¦H

iSec, 5301,56', {A) AS USED.:'lN THIS SECTION: ' ¦

' {1) "HOLDER" INCLUDES NOT ONLY .THE RECORD ' HOLDER OP A ,7.7

MINERAL INTEREST, BUT ALSO ANY F2RS0N WHO DERIVES. HIS RIGHTS 7.8

FROM, OR A COMMON SOURCE WITH, THE RECORD HOLDER AND WHOSE CLArM 7.10

DOES NOT INDICATE, EXPRESSLY OR BY CLEAR IMPLICATION, THAT IT IS 7.11

ADVERSE TO THE INTEREST OF THE RECORD HOLDER. ;

¦ {2) "DRILLING OR MINING . PERMIT" MEANS A PERMIT ISSUED 1 7.13

UNDER CHAPTER 1909., 1513., OR 1514. : OF THE REVISED CODE TO THE 7.15

HOLDER TO DRILL AN OIL OR GAS WELL ORMINE OTHER MINERALS.

i: 7.5

i

; >

<

!

:

s 7.16

<§) ANY MINERAL INTEREST HELD BY ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE 7.19

. OWNER OF THE SURFACE OF THE LANDS SHALL BE DEEMED ABANDONED AND. .7.20

VESTED IN THE OWNER OF THE SURFACE, IF NEITHER OF THE FOLLOWING 7.21

IS TRUE: .

I

(1) THE MINERAL INTEREST IS ONE IN COAL, . OR MINING OR 7.23

OTHER RIGHTS PERTINENT THERETO, AS DESCRIBED IN DIVISION {§) OF >7.24

SECTION 5301.53 OF .THE REVISED CODE;- 1 *

, - {2} WITHIN THE PRECEDING TWENTY YEARS, ONE OR MORE OF THE 7.27

FOLLOWING HAS OCCURRED:

:!:i 7,25;!

'¦j

*

7.28

THE INTEREST HAS BEEN CONVEYED, LEASED, TRANSFERRED, 7.30

;;i / (a)

OR MORTAGED BY AN INSTRUMENT FILED OR RECORDED IN THE RECORDER'S 7.31

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE LANDS ARE LOCATED;

i

7.32

<b> THERE HAS BEEN ACTUAL PRODUCTION OR WITHDRAWAL OF 7.34

MINERALS BY THE HOLDER FROM THE LANDS", FROM LANDS COVERED BY A '7.35

LEASE TO WHICH SUCH INTEREST IS SUBJECT, OR, IN THE CASE OF OIL 7.36

OR GAS, FROM LANDS POOLED,. UNITIZED, OR INCLUDED IN UNIT

OPERATIONS, UNDER SECTIONS 1509.26 TO 1509.28 OF THE REVISED

8.1*

8.2

" CODE, IN WHICH THE INTEREST IS PARTICIPATING?, ' *

THE INTEREST HAS BEEN USED IN UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE

8.3

<£> 8.6 ¦>.

OPERATIONS BY THE HOLDER;

{d> A DRILLING. OR MINING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE 8.8 ;

HOLDER? 8.9;

A CLAIM TO PRESERVE THE INTEREST HAS BEEN FILED UNDER

DIVISION (C) OF THIS SECTION.

<£> 8.12

:

;

I:

;

:

Page 45: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

7 -»•

NO MINERAL INTEREST SHALL BE DEEMED ABANDONED UPON THE 8.14

BASIS OF FAILURE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DIVISION { B) OF THIS SECTION 8.16

PRIOR TO THREE YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION. 8.17

A CLAIM TO PRESERVE A MINERAL INTEREST FROM BEING 8.19(C-J

DEEMED ABANDONED UNDER DIVISION (B) OF THIS SECTION MAY BE FILED 8.21

. FOR RECORD BY THE HOLDER WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY 8.22

THE CLAIM SHALL '.CONSIST OF A 8.23IN WHICH THE LAND IS 'LOCATED.

•jNOTICE,, VERIFIED UNDER OATH, OF THE NATURE OF THE INTEREST

CLAIMED, A DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND, THE VOLUME AND PAGE OF ANY 8.24

RECORDED INSTRUMENT ON WHICH IT IS BASED, THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF 8.26

THE HOLDER-, AND THAT HE DOES NOT INTEND , TO ABANDON BUT TOi

SUCH CLAIM PRESERVES THE RIGHTS OF ALL 8.27

HOLDERS OF A MINERAL INTEREST IN THE SAME. LAND. ANY HOLDER OF AN 8.29• ¦. - '

INTEREST FOR ' USE' IN UNDERGROUND' GAS STORAGE OPERATIONS MAY

PRESERVE HIS RIGHTS.

PRESERVE HIS INTEREST., AND THOSE OF ANY LESSOR' THEREOF, BY A -8.30

SINGLE . CLAIM, , DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STORAGE FIELD OR ' 8.31

POOL AND ITS FORMATIONS, WITHOUT DESCRIBING EACH SEPARATE .8.32

INTEREST CLAIMED." ' ' SUCH A CLAIM ALSO ESTABLISHES PRIMA-FACIE 8.33

I

j

EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF SUCH INTEREST IN UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE 8.34

/ i > 8.35OPERATIONS ./

(D) A CLAIM FILED UNDER DIVISION (C) OF THIS SECTION SHALL 9.2

BE RECORDED AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 317.18 TO 317.201 AND 5301.52 9.3

OF THE REVISED CODE. .

»• a

A MINERAL INTEREST MAY BE PRESERVED INDEFINITELY FROM 9,6

THE PRESUMPTION OF ABANDONMENT UNDER THIS SECTION BY OCCURRENCE 9.7

OF ANY OF THE EVENTS DESCRIBED IN DIVISION { B ) (2) OF THIS 9,8

SECTION, INCLUDING SUCCESSIVE FILINGS OFsv CLAIMS UNDER DIVISION 9.9

(C) OF THIS SECTION. THE FILING OF A CLAIM UNDER DIVISION (C) OF 9.10

THIS SECTION DOES NOT AFFECT THE RIGHT OF A LESSOR OF AN OIL OR 9.11

GAS LEASE TO OBTAIN ITS FORFEITURE UNDER SECTION 5301.332 OF THE, 9.12

if

REVISED CODE. ;

THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY MINERAL INTEREST 9.14iD

HELD BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY. 9.15 i

I

i

¦

Page 46: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

*

. i

. 9

*;

«... •

*

8

Section 2. That existing sections 317,18, 317,20, 317.201, 9.17

and 5301.53 and section 5301.56 of the Revised Code are hereby 9,18

. repealed]

:V

9.19h \

. i

S

v

. «.

i

i

1} >

¦

j

•i

*i

¦i:\!;

j j

1•i

5' ;

;

1

T

.1

' 1 1

;¦ >& t

• >

i

/'i

<

:i

.1

:•

i;

¦;

i

¦>

'i;

;f

P

i

Page 47: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

.. • '. As Reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee

' 117th General Assembly

Regular Session

1987-1988

1.4n

\ 1.67

Sub. S. B. NO. 223 1.7

'• i 1.8

MESSRS. CUPP-SCHAFRATH-NETTLE-MRS . DRAKE 1,10I

•yi.il

A BILL 1.12

To amend sections 317.18, 317.20, 317.201, and 1.14

" 5301.53, to?enact new section 5301.56, and to 1.15

' repeal section 5301.56 of the Revised Code to 1.16

provide a method for the termination of dormant '

mineral estates and the vesting of their title in 1.17

' the surface owners, in the absence of certain 1.18

occurrences within the preceding 20 years, 1.19

including the filing by\the holder of the mineral 1.20

interest of a notice of claim. • •

i

' • "i

;

BE IT ENACTED BY ..THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:

Section 1. That sections 317,n18, 317.20, 317. 201, and 1.25

5301.53 be amended and new section 5301,56 of the Revised Code be 1J26

enacted to read as follows:

Sec. 317.18. At the beginning of each day's business the 1.30

county recorder shall make and keep up general alphabetical 1.31

indexes, direct and reverse, of all the names of both parties to 1.33

all instruments theretofore received for record by him. The 1.34

volume and page where such instrument is recorded may be omitted 1.35

until it is actually recorded if the file number is entered in 1.36

place of the volume or pageT-bttt-seeh-fele-ntsraber-ffiay-be-oaetfeed 2.1

• f rem-any-ifidex-volame-ift-ase-en-Aprii-2ir-l9967-tf—the—form—of 2 . 3

the-ende*-v©lome-ta-h©t-edapted-te©-enfcerinf-the~ftrie-number . T^e 2 . 5

indexes shall show the kind of instrument, the range, township,\ 2.7

and section or the survey number and number of acres? or the 2.8t . .

permanent parcel number provided for under section 319.28 of the 2.9

Revised Code, or the lot and sublot number and the part thereof, 2.10

all as the case requires, of each tract, parcel, or lot of lafnd 2.12

described in any such instrument of writing. The name of each 2.13

1.23

1.27

:

I

H

ij

:

Page 48: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

\

*2

grantor shall,v be entered in the direct . index under the

appropriate letter, followed on the same line'' -by the name "of the 2.14

grantee, or, if. there is more than one grantee, by 'the name of 2.15,;.•i ¦

!¦ the first grantee followed by "and others" or their equivalent, 2.16

, The name of each grantee shall be entered in the reverse index 2.17

under the- appropriate letter,' followed on the same line by the, 2.19

name of the grantor, or, if there is more than one grantor, by 2.20

the name of the first grantor followed by "and others" or their

equivalent . 2.211

; As to notices of claims filed in Accordance with sections 2.22

' 5301.51 5301. 52^ AND 5301.56 of the Revised Code there shall 2.24

be entered in the reverse index under the appropriate letter the 2.25

name of each claimant, followed on the same line by the name of 2.26

' the present owner of title against whom the claim is asserted, if 2.27 -

the notice contains the name of the present owner; or, if .--the 2.28

notice contains the names of more than one such owner, there 2.30

shall be entered the name of the first owner followed by "and 2.32

2.33

i

! ¦

' others" 'or their equivalent. , *

In all cases of deeds, mortgages, or other instruments of 2.34

writing made by any sheriff, master commissioner, marshal, 2.35

auditor, executor, administrator, trustee, or other officer, for. 2,36

the sale, conveyance, or encumbrance of any lands, .tenements,, or 3.1* . ) -

hereditaments, and recorded in the recorder's office, the 3.2

recorder shall index the parties to such instrument under their 3.3

appropriate letters, respectively, as follows:

(A) The names of^ the persons represented by such officer 3.5

as' owners of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments described in 3.7

/

3,4

any such instruments; •

' ' ' •-—(B) The official designation of the officer by whom such\ 3.8

instrument of, writing was made;

(C) The individual names of the officers by whom such 3.10

instrument of writing -was made.

In all cases of instruments filed in accordance with 3.12

. sections 5311.01 to 5311.22 of the Revised Code# the name of each 3.14

' owner shall be entered in the direct index, under the appropriate 3,15

.9

3.11

i

Page 49: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

3

letter, followed on- the same line by the name of the- condominium 3.16

property, and the name, of the condominium property shall be 3.17

entered in the reverse index under the .appropriate letter •. v I

followed on the same line by the name of the owner of the 3.18

property, or, if the instrument contains the names of more than 3.19

. one owner; there shall be entered the name of the first owner 3.20

followed by "and others" or its equivalent. •

Any general alphabetical index commenced—after-<Jtme-?r 3.22

1911- shall be COMMENCED in conformity 'to this section/ and 3.23

whenever, in the opinion of the board of .county commissioners, It 3.25

becomes necessary to transcribe, on account of its. worn out or 3.26' . * \

incomplete condition, any volume of such AN index now in u$e, 3.29

such volume shall.be revised and transcribed to conform with this 3.30

section; except that in co'unties having a sectional index in .3.31

conformity;, with section 317.-20 of the Revised Code,

transcript shall be only a copy of the original.

When, in the opinion of the board of county 3.36

. • commissioners sectional indexes are needed, and it so directs, in 4.1>

addition , to the alphabetical indexes provided for .in section 4.2

317.18 of the Revised Code, the board may provide for making, in 4.3

books prepared for that purpose, sectional indexes to the' records 4.4* J

of all real estate in the county, beginning with some designated 4.5

year and continuing through such period of years as it specified,. 4.6' . * ' • . r

by placing under the heads of the original surveyed sections or 4.7

, surveys, or parts of a section or survey, squares, subdivisions, 4.8

V

•i

!

!:

3.21

such 3.33

3.34

Sec. 317.20.

* -3

or the permanent parcel numbers provided for under section 319.28 4.1Q

of the Revised Code, or lots, on the left-hand page, or on the 4.12

' 4.13

4.14

4.16

upper portion 'Of such page, of the , index book, the following:

{A} The name of the grantor;

(B) Next to the right, the name of the grantee;

<C) The number and page of the record where thS instrument 4.18

<

r

is found recorded;

(D) The character of the instrument, to be followed by a 4.21

pertinent description of the property conveyed by the deed, 4.22

lease, or assignment of lease;

4,. 19

i

Page 50: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

5 4• S

"4 .(E) . On -.the opposite page, or on the lower portion of the 4-23

same page, beginning at the bottom, "in like manner, -all-. the 4.24

mortgages, liens, notices as provided for in sections 5301^51 4.25

'j ¦¦ and^*- . 5301.52,, .AND 5301 .56 of the Revised Code, or other" 4.2? "1 . «•

"encumbrances affecting such real estate. ¦

-I

4.29

The compensation for the services rendered ' under this 4.30 .

section shall be paid from the general revenue 'fund of the 4.31

county, and, no additional levy shall be piade in consequence of 4.32

such services, in. the event that the board decides to have such 4.33

sectional index made it shall advertise for' three consecutive 4.34

' weeks in one newspaper of general' circulation in the county for 4.35-

f

;

sealed proposals to do such work as provided in this section, and ,4.36

shall let the work to the lowest and best bidder, and shall 5.1

require him to . give • bond- for the faithful performance of the 5.2

contract, in 'Such sum as the board fixes, and such work shall be -5.3

to the acceptance of . ,t;he bureau of supervision (and 5.4

. inspection of public offices upon allowance by such board.

* board" , may reject any and all bids fdr the work^ provided5' that no 5.6

more than five cents "shall bei'paid for each entry o& each tract 5.7

5.8

\i

done

The 5.5

• .1

)

or lot of land.

1 ' •When brought up and completed, the county recorder shall 5.9

5.10

.! i;

'•* '.keep up the indexes .described in this section.

¦ Sec. 317,201. The county recorder shall maintain a book to.. -5.11' • ' ¦'< / ','*** ' -

be known as the "Notice Index." Separate pages of the book shall 5.12• v< , .' '

be headed by the original survey sections or surveys, or parts of 5.14

a section or survey, squares, subdivisions, or the permanent 5.15

parcel numbers provided for under section 319.28 of the Revised 5.16' ' " "••• • ,

Code, or lots. In this book there shall be entered the notices 5.1»7[ . ¦' ' ¦ ¦

for preservation of claims presented for recording in ponf^rmtty 5.18

with sections 5301.51 and, 5301.52, AND 5301.56 of the Revised 5.20Code. . In designated columns there shall be entered on the left- 5.21

i

hand page:

5.23(A) „ The name of each claimant?

<B) Next to ttfe right, the name of each owner of title?¦:¦/

5.25

¦ ;¦

f

¦

Page 51: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

v' - 5 •* . . ' ' "

¦ (C) ;The ;.''dfecl book number and p&ge where the instrument 5.27 .

containing the cla'ira. ,has been recorded; ' '

(D) The *t$pe of claim asserted; and oh- the 'opposite page 5.30

oh the. cor responding ,-Xine a pertinenti description 'of, the property 5.31' « ' • • . « • . ^ ^ ,

affected as appears ^in such- notice. ,"/¦ ; -

• ' ¦ * i . - ^ 1 ' ¦Sec. 5301. 5'3«. The provisions of. sections 530l;47 .to 5.35

' ¦ ,V t' ' ' .

5301.56 of the RejVii-j&ed Coder shall nbt be applied TO' SAS OR 6.1

EXTINGUISH ANY OFHTHE; FOLLOWING r/ , „ . .

'¦ ' i ' • r'

(A) ¦fe-baerfthy ANY lessor or his successor as reversioner 6.4

. \ r i I '¦ • • • i . ' • • > i ;

of his right to possession on the expiration o.f any lease or any 6.^

lessee or his .sugc'essor of his rights in and tb'.any 'l'fease^ EXCEPT 6.7

AS MAY BE PERMITTED 'UNDER SECTION 5301.56 -pF THE. REVISED COpE; ; ' 6.8

¦ -(B) To—b&r-or-exfcingaish-any ANY easement or interest in 6.10

- ?-iv ' .asfc&gsynat'ufe of an easement cteated or held for any railroad or 6*11

•?

5,28

5.32

i6.2

public utility purposh; ' 6.12

interest ip 6.14

is clearly 6.15

" < 6.17

v

To—baerrb^exteingaish-arty ;ANY easenfent

the nature of an easement, the existence .of which

(C) or <

A .

observable by physical' fevidence of its use;

To—bab7©r;-extcfftgtt.tsh-any; ANY easement or interest -in 6.19(D)

the nature of an easement, 'or any rights .granted, excepted, or 6.20

reserved by the instrument creating such easement or interest, 6.21

including afiy rights for future use, if the existence of such 6.22

easement ror interest .is evidenced by the location beneath, upon, 6.23 .• ; j, . - . ¦ , • ^ • ¦

above any part q€'\He land described in such instrument , of any 6.26

pipe, valve, roa«£, "wire, cable, conduit, duct, sewer, track,

pd'le, tower, or ot'heb 'physical . facility and'whether or not the 6.27

i existence of such .facility is observable;

(E) ?o-baff-OT..-exfeingttish-any "ANY right, title, estate, or 6.30

. interest in coal, artdr- any mining or other rights

thereto or exercisable . in connection therewith; .

(F) T©—fear—or—extinguish—any ANY mortgage recorded in 6,33

conformity with section 1701.66 of the Revised Co^e;-'^

<G> To-feajf-HS-ctesefcingtiish-eny ANY right, title, or interest 6.36

of the United States, or of fehe-sSfeafee-ef-6hi© THIS STATE, or any 7.2

political subdivision, body politic, or agency thereof.

or

\ !6.28

Irnent 6.31

I6.32

6.34

!

7.3

i

Page 52: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

V

A¦ V

6

Vi

Sec. 5301.56. {A} AS USED IN THIS SECTION! 7.5

1) "HOLDER" INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE RECORD HOLDER OF A 7.7; _

ii

MINERAL INTEREST, BUT ALSO ANY PERSON WHO DERIVES HIS RIGHTS 7.8

FROM, -pR A COMMON SOURCE WITH, THE RECORD HOLDER AND WHOSE CLAIM 7.10

DOES tfe]r INDICATE, EXPRESSLY OR BY CLEAR IMPLICATION, THAT IT IS 7.11: - i ? '

ADVERSE.\ TO THE INTEREST OF THE RECORD HOLDER.

"DRILLING OR MINING PERMIT"' MEANS A PERMIT ISSUED 7.13\q)

UNDER CHAPTER 1509 1513., OR 1514. OF THE REVISED CODE TO THE 7.15

HOLDER TO DRILL AN OIL OR GAS WELL OR MINE OTHER MINERALS.

; . {B| ANY MINERAL INTEREST HELD. BY ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE 7.19

owner Of! the surface of the lands shall be DEEMED ABANDONED AND 7.20

VESTED |N THE OWNER OF THE SURFACE, IF NEITHER OF THE FOLLOWING 7.21 .

» t

i

7.16

J

! ' IS TRUE?' '

(d;)| THE MINERAL INTEREST IS ONE IN COAL, OR MINING OR 7.2 3

OTHER RIGHTS PERTINENT THERETO, AS DESCRIBED IN DIVISION { E ) OF 7.24

SECTION? $j301. 53 OF THE REVISED CODE;

'{2H WITHIN THE PRECEDING TWENTY YEARS, ONE OR MORE OF THE 7.27

fOLLOWING ;HAS OCCURRED:

,'{a) | THE MINERAL INTEREST HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A TITLE 7.30

TRANSACTION WHICH HAS BEEN FILED OR RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE 7.32

3

7.25

i7.28

COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE LAND IS LOCATED;

(&) THERE HAS BEEN ACTUAL PRODUCTION OR -WITHDRAWAL OF 7.34

MINERALS 'BY THE HOLDER FROM THE LANDS, FROM LANDS COVERED BY A 7.35

LEASE . TCf'i WHICH SUCH INTEREST IS SUBJECT, OR, IN THE CASE OF OIL 7.36, }

OR GAS, . FROM LANDS POOLED, UNITIZED, OR INCLUDED IN UNIT 8.1i '

OPERATIONS, UNDER SECTIONS 1509.26 TO 1509.28 OF THE REVISED 8.2

CODE, IN WHICH THE INTEREST IS PARTICIPATING, PROVIDED THAT THE 8.4

INSTRUMENT' CREATING OR PROVIDING FOR THE POOLING OR UNITIZATION 8.5, • Z

OF1 OIL OR'jsAS INTERESTS HAS BEEN FILED OR RECORDED IN THE JD

OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE LANDS THAT ARE

SUBJECT TO j THE POOLING OR UNITIZATION ARE LOCATED;

( g) ' THE INTEREST HAS BEEN USED IN UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE 8.11\ '

OPERATIONS : BY THE HOLDER;

(d) ij A DRILLING OR MINING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE 8.13

HOLDER, PROVIDED THAT AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THE NAME OF THE PERMIT 8.15

¦;

E 8.6

8.7

8.8

r

\

Page 53: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

• !

; •

V

' h 7• i

1! HOLDER , THE . PERMIT NUMBER, THE TYPE OF PERMIT, AND A LEGAL 8.i§

J DESCRIPTION OF' THE LAND. AFFECTED BY THE PERMIT HAS BEEN FILED OR 8 17

RECORDED,/ IN ACCORDANCE. WITH SECTION 5301.252 OF THE REVISED' 8._8

CODE, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY. RECORDER OF THE COUNTY IN .WHICH 8.19

. THE LAND IS LOCATED-;

1 •

1

<6

A CLAIM; TO PRESERVE THE'- INTEREST HAS BEEN FILED, UNDER

. DIVISION (C) OF THIS .SECTION; ; . ¦=

<•>8.22

-i!

(f) . IN eTHfe CASE., OF A SEPARATED MINERAL INTEREST, A 8.24

- SEPARATELY LISTED TAX PARCEL NUMBER HAS BEEN CREATED/ FOR THE 8.25

-MINERAL INTEREST IN THE AUDITOR'^ TAX- LIST AND THE TREASURER'S 8.26

DUPLICATE TAX LIST IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH ' THE. LAND IS LOCATED.

NO " MINERAL INTEREST SHALL"'. BE > DEEMED ABANDONED UPON THE 8.29 /

BASIS -OF FAILURE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DIVISION (B) OF THIS SECTION 8.31

PRIOR TO THREE YEARS FROM THE -EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION-.

, <£>

' 1¦ *

. ;

i 8 . 27

¦i

¦ i

8.32 •

PRESERVE. A MINERAL INTEREST FROM BEING 8.34

bEEMED ABANDONED UNDER DIVISION (B| OF THIS SECTION MAY, BE FILED 8.36

. *.

A CLAIM TO

' .FOR RECORD BY 'THE HOLDER WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY 9.1

. ' IN WHICH THE LAND IS LOCATED. r THE CLAIM SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL OF 9.2•-

, -THE -FOLLOWING:., - ,- .?

' U-i BE FILED "'"IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION .5 30,1 .52 OF- THE- . 9.4

. ?

REVISED CODE;

' (.2) ,-i .'STATE THE RECORDING INFORMATION, 'i-FJVNY, UPON WHICH 9.7

9.5

THE CLAIM IS/BASED; 9.8

STATE THAT THE CLAIMANT DOES. NOT INTEND TO ABANDON BUT .9.10

' : TO PRESERVE HIS RIGHTS IN THE MINERAL INTEREST DESCRIBED.

(3)

9.11

SUCH CLAIM PRESERVES THE RIGHTS OF ALL HOLDERS OF A MINERAL 9.14

INTEREST IN THE SAME LAND. ANY HOLDER. OF AN INTEREST FOR USE IN 9.15

UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE OPERATIONS MAY PRESERVE HIS INTEREST, AND 9.16

THOSE OF ANY LESSOR THEREOF, BY" A SINGLE CLAIM, DEFINING THEN. 9.17

BOUNDARIES OF THE STORAGE FIELD OR POOL AND ITS FORMATIONS i V.18

WITHOUT DESCRIBING EACH SEPARATE INTEREST CLAIMED. SUCH A CLAIM 9.19

ALSO ESTABLISHES PRIMA-FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF SUCH INTEREST 9.20

IN UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE OPERATIONS. 9.21

Page 54: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

e

. (D) ft CLAIM FILED UNDER DIVISION (C) OF THIS SECTION SHALL

BE RECORDED AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 317.18 TO 317.201 AND 5301.52

9.24

9.25

OF THE REVISED CODE.

A MINERAL INTEREST MAY BE PRESERVED INDEFINITELY FROM 9.28(E)

THE PRESUMPTION OF ABANDONMENT UNDER THIS SECTION BY OCCURRENCE 9.29

OF ANY OF THE EVENTS DESCRIBED IN DIVISION -(B)(2) OF THIS

SECTION, .INCLUDING SUCCESSIVE FILINGS OF CLAIMS UNDER DIVISION

(C) OF THIS SECTION. THE FILING OF A CLAIM UNDER DIVISION (C) OF

THIS SECTION DOES NOT AFFECT THE RIGHT OF A LESSOR OF AN OIL OR

9.30

9. 31

9.32

9.33

. GAS LEASE TO OBTAIN ITS FORFEITURE UNDER SECTION 5301.332 OP THE 9.34

REVISED CODE.

(F) THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY MINERAL INTEREST 9.36

10. 1HELD BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY.

Section 2. That existing sections 317.18, 317.20, 317.201,

and 5301.53 and section 5301.56 of the Revised Code are hereby

!

10.3

10.4

10.5. repealed.

Page 55: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

7¦I

' •}

As Passed. by the Senate 1.4

J 117th General Assembly

Regular Session

1987-1988

: MESSRS. CUPP-SCHAFRATH-NETTLE-MRS. DRAKE-MR. BURCH

1:6

•Sub.S. B. No. 223 1.7

1.8

1.10

1.11{

A BILL 1.12

To amend sections 317.18, 317.20, 317.201, and 1.14

5301.53, to enact new section 5301.56, and to 1.15

repeal section 5301.56 of the Revised Code to : 1.16

provide a method for the termination of dormant

mineral estates and the vesting of their title in 1.17

the surface owners, in the absence of certain 1.18

occurrences within | the preceding 20 years, 1.19

including the filing by the holder of the mineral 1.20

•.jinterest of a notice of claim. f '

I

?

BE IT ENACTED BY THE ' GENERAL. ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO: 1.23

That sections 317.18, 317.20, 317.201, and 1.25Section -1.

-5301.53 be amended and new section 5301.56 of the Revised Code be 1.26

enacted to read as follows: 1.27

. Sec. 317.18. At the beginning of each day's business the 1.30«

county recorder shall make and keep up general alphabetical 1.31

indexes, direct and reverse, of all the names of both parties to 1.33

all instruments theretofore received for record by him. The 1.34

volume and page where such instrument is recorded may be omitted 1.35

until it, is actually recorded if the file number is entered in 1.36

place of the volume or page7-bat-saeh~£*le-n«mber~raay-be-om±tted 2.1

£rem-any-£ndex-voittme-*tn-aae-oft-Apeii-2ir-i8967-£f—the—form--©# 2 . 3

the-index-voittme-is-nofc-adapfced-td-entertng-fehe-ftie-ftomber . The 2 . 5

indexes shall show the kind of instrument, the range, township, 2.7

and section or the survey number and number of acres, or the 2.8

permanent parcel number provided for under section 319.28 of the 2.9

Revised Code, or the lot and sublet number and the part thereof, 2.10

all as the case requires, of each tract, parcel, or lot of iand 2.12

described in any such instrument of writing. The name of each 2.13

;

;

i

i

Page 56: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

2

grantor shall be entered in the direct index under the

appropriate letter, followed on the same line by the name of the

grantee, or, if there is more than one grantee, by the name of

the first grantee followed by "and others" or their equivalent.

The name of each grantee shall be entered in the reverse index

under the appropriate letter, followed on the same line by the

name of the grantor, or, if there is more than one grantor, by

the name of the first grantor followed by "and others" or their

equivalent.

2.14

2.15i<

2.16

i2.17- . s

*2. 19;

2. 20

2, 21

. As to notices of claims filed in accordance with sections 2.22

5301.51 and,. 5301. 52± AND 5301.56 of the Revised Code there shall 2.24

be entered in the reverse index under the appropriate letter the 2.25

name of each claimant, followed on the same line by the name of 2.26

the present owner' of title against whom the claim is asserted,. ..if 2.27

the notice contains the name of the present owner: or, if the 2.28

notice contains the names of more than one such owner, there 2.30

shall be entered the name of the first owner followed by "and 2.32

others" or thei(r, equivalent.

In all cases of deeds, mortgages, or other instruments of 2.34

writing made by any sheriff, master commissioner, marshal, 2^35

auditor, executor, administrator, trustee, cfr other officer, for 2.36

*

the sale, conveyance, or encumbrance of any lands, tenements, or 3.1

hereditaments, and recorded in the recorder's office, the 3.2

recorder shall index the parties to such instrument under their 3.3

appropriate letters, respectively, as follows:

(A) The names of the persons represented^fcy such- officer ,3.5

as owners of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments described in 3.7-

any such instruments; .

<B) The official designation of the officer by whom such 3.8

instrument of writing was made;

(C) The individual names of v the officers by whom such 3.10

instrument of writing was made,.

In all cases of instruments filed in accordance with 3.12

sections 5311.01 to 5311.22 of the Revised Code, the name of each 3.14

owner shall be entered in the direct index, under the appropriate 3.15

i

!

!

2.33

~ , --3.4 -

3.9

:

3.11

J

i

•!

•i

Page 57: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

) ¦3Vi

.letter, followed on the same line by 'the name of the condominium -3.16

property, and the ftame 'of the condominium property shall be 3.17

;enter$d in the reverse .index . under the appropriate letter

•followed on the same line by the .name of the owner of the 3.18

. property, ;pr, if the instrument, contains the names of more than 3.19

one. owner' there shall be entered the name Of the first owner 3.20

¦ followed by "and, others" or- its ¦ equivalent . ¦

- ' Any general alphabetical index commenced- -after-June-?? 3.22

494ir"shali be COMMENCED in conformity to this section, and 3.23

whenever, in the opinion of the board of'county commissioners, it 3.25

becomes necessary to transcribe, on account of its worrv out '.or 3.26

incomplete condition, any volume of . such AN'index now in use, 3.29

I .. . ,.

•Such' volume shall be revised and, transcribed to conform with this 3.30

• section; except that in counties^, having a sectional index in 3.31

conformity, with section 317.20 = of the Revised' Code,

' transcript shall be only a copy of the original. *

Sec. 317.20. When,' in, the opinion of the board of county 3.36

•commissioners,- sectional indexes are needed, . and it so directs, in .4.1

. '. . 'L-

-

addition to- the alphabetical indexes provided for in section 4.2

317.18 of the Revised Code, the board may provide for making, in 4.3

' books prepared for that purpose, sectional; indexes \d the records 4.4

of all real estate in the- county, beginning -with' some designated 4.5'

,year and continuing through such period of years as it specified, 4.6

' ' ' ' ' • '.V i

by placing under the heads of the original surveyed' sections or 4.7

surveys, or parts of a section or survey, squares, subdivisions, 4.8

..or the permanent parcel numbers provided for under section 319,28 4.10

of the Revised Code, or lets, on the left-hand page, or on the 4.12"

; . , ¦ •

,

upper portion of such page of the index book, the following;

(A) The name of the grantor;

(B) Next to the right, the name of the grantee; ¦

. (C) The number and page of the record where the instrument 4.18

is found recorded;'

4

Ir

¦

I;j-

- i '

3.21

1

• 1 such 3.33

!

3.34

!

¦

¦'5 5

i

js

!

4.13

4.14

4.161

4.19

The' character of the instrument, to be followed by a 4.21

pertinent description of the property conveyed by the deed, 4.22

lease, or 'assignment of lease;.• '

(0)

;

¦1

Page 58: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

'

•. 4

(E) On the opposite page, or on. the lower portion of the 4.23

same page, beginning at the bottom, in like manner, all the 4.24

mortgages, liens, notices as provided for in sect ions^ 5 301 . 51 4.25

andj^ 5301. 52^ AND 5 301. 56 of the- Revised Code, or other 4.27

encumbrances affecting such real estate. . '

' The' compensation for the services rendered under this 4.30

section shall be paid from the .general revenue fund of the 4.31

county, and ¦ no., additional levy shall be made in consequence of 4.32

such services. In the event' that the board decides to have such 4.33

sectional index made it shall advertise for three consecutive 4.34

weeks in one newspaper of general circulation in the county for 4.35

¦ sealed proposals to do such work as provided in this' section, and 4.36'

shall let the .work to the lowest' and best bidder, and 'shall 5.1

require him to give bond for the faithful performance of the 5.2• 1 . ... / - . - '

contract, in such sura as the board fixes, and such work shall be 5.3

done to the acceptance of the bureau of supervision and 5.4

inspection of public offices upon allowance by such board-. The 5.5'.,

board may reject any and all bids for the work, provided that no 5,6

more than five pents shall be paid for each entry of each tract 5.7

or lot of land. . . • " ^'' •' ' i * * 1

When brought up and completed, the county recorder shall 5.9

keep up the indexes described in this secfion.

Sec. 317.201. The county recorder shall maintain a book to 5.11

be known as the "Notice Index." Separate pages of the book shall 5.12

be headed by the original survey sections or surveys, or parts qf^5.14

a section or survey, squares, subdivisions, or the permanent 5.15

parcel numbers provided for under section 319.28 of the Revised 5.16.

Code, or lots. In this book there shall be entered the notices 5,17

for preservation of claims presented for recording in conformity 5.18

with sections 5301.51 awd^ 5301. 52^ AND 5301.56 of the Revised 5.20

Code. In designated columns there shall be entered on the left- 5.21

hand page: '

I

!

4.29\

j '

5.8

j5.10

:

>

i.

(A) The name of each claimant?

(B) Next to the right, the name of each owner of title;

5.23

5.25

;

Page 59: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

;• : J.

51

n(C) The deed book number and page where the instrument 5.27

containing the claim, has been recorded;

• * . . ' . ¦{D) The type of claim asserted; and on the opposite page 5.30

on the corresponding line a pertinent description of the property 5,31

affected as appears in such, notice.

Sec. 5301.53. The provisions of . sections' 5301.47 to 5.35

5301, 56. of "the -Revised Coder shall not be applied TO BAR OR 6.1

'EXTINGUISH ANY/OF THE FOLLOWING;

' P

5.28

:]¦i

•I

5.32

6.2

(A) To^bar-any ANY lessor or his successor as reversioner 6.4v,

of his right 'to possession on the expiration of any lease or any 6.5

lessee or his successor of his rights iri and to any lease^ EXCEPT 6.7

AS HAY BE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 5301.56 OF THE REVISED CODE;

, (%} To—bar-er-exfeinguish-any ANY easement or interest in 6.10

! . itjie nature of an easement created .or held for any railroad, or 6.11

public utility purpose; .

(C>) To —bar-or-exfeinguish-any ANY easement or interest in 6.14

the nature of an easement, the existence of which is clearly 6.15

observable by physical evidence of its use? •

(D) To—bae-Off-exfcingaish-eny ANY easement or interest in 6.19

the nature of an easement, 6r any rights granted, excepted', or 6.20

reserved by the instrument creating such easement or interest, 6.21

including any rights for future use, if the existence of such 6.22

easement or interest is evidenced by the location beneath, upon, 6.23

or above any part of the land described in such instrument of any 6.26

pipe, valve, road, wire, cable, conduit, duct, sewer, track,

pole, tower, or other physical facility and whether or not the 6.27

existence of such facility is observable;

(E) To-bar-or-eietinguish-eny ANY right, title, estate, or 6.30

interest in coal, and any mining or other rights pertinent 6.31

thereto or exercisable in connection therewith;

6.8

6.12

6.17

i

' »

6:28

f>

6,32

(F) To—fear—oe—extinguish- -any ANY mortgage recorded in 6.33

conformity with section 1701-.66 of the Revised Code;

(G) To-bar-or-extinguish-eny ANY right, title, or interest 6.36

of the United States, or of the-sfeate-of-ehi© THIS STATE, or any 7.2

political subdivision, body politic, or agency thereof.

I *

6.34

7.3

,

I

Page 60: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

(!'

¦3 .

*

6

- Sec. 5301. S6. (A) AS USED IN THIS SECTION: •

(1) "HOLDER" INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE RECORD HOLDER OF A 7.7

MINERAL INTEREST./ §UT ALSO ANY PERSON WHO DERIVES HIS RIGHTS 7.8

FROM, OR A COMMON SOURCE WITH, THE RECORD HOLDER AND WHOSE CLAIM 7.10

. DOES NOT INDICATE',- EXPRESSLY OR BY CLEAR IMPLICATION, THAT IT IS 7.11

ADVERSE TO THE INTEREST OF THE RECORD HOLDER., '

(2) "DRILLING OR MINING PERMIT" MEANS A PERMIT ISSUED 7.13

UNDER 'CHAPTER 1509., 1513., OR' 1514. OF THE REVISED CODE TO THE 7.15

HOLDER TO DRILL AN OIL OR GAS WELL OR MINE OTHER MINERALS.'

1 (B) ANY MINERAL INTEREST HELD BY ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE 7.19

OWNER OF THE SURFACE OF; THE LANDS SHALL BE DEEMED ABANDONED AND 7.20*' J

VESTED IN THE OWNER OF THE SURFACE, IF NEITHER OF THE FOLLOWING 7.21

IS TRUE: ' . ¦ '

7.5

J

'!

!•

* ¦

!

<• 7.16

!

!

$

THE MINERAL INTEREST IS ONE IN COAL, OR MINING OR 7.23

OTHER RIGHTS PERTINENT THERETO, AS DESCRIBED IN DIVISION (E) OF 7.24

SECTION 5301.53 OF THE REVISED .CODE;

• {2) ' WITHIN THE PRECEDING TWENTY YEARS, ONE OR MORE OF THE ' 7.27

{1)

7.25

FOLLOWING HAS OCCURRED: 7.28'

" j (a) THE MINERAL INTEREST" HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT. A TITLE 7.30

TRANSACTION WHICH HAS BEEN FILED OR RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE 7.3 2• ?' ' v

COUNTY RECORDER OF THE. COUNTY IN WHICH THE LAND IS LOCATED;' , . ¦ * ¦

¦ (b) ; THERE HAS BEEN ACTUAL PRODUCTION OR WITHDRAWAL OF 7.34

MINERALS BY THE HOLDER FROM THE LANDS, FROM LANDS COVERED BY A 7.35

LEASE TO * WHICH SUCH INTEREST IS SUBJECT, OR, IN THE CASE OF OIL 7.36

OR GAS, FROM LANDS POOLED, , UNITIZED, OR INCLUDED IN UNIT 8.1'

OPERATIONS, UNDER SECTIONS 1509.2.6 TO 1509.28 OF THE REVISED 8.2,

CODE, IN WHICH THE INTEREST IS PARTICIPATING, PROVIDED THAT THE 8.4

INSTRUMENT CREATING OR PROVIDING FOR THE POOLING OR UNITIZATION 8.5

:

i

OF OIL OR GAS INTERESTS HAS BEEN FILED OR RECORDED IN THE OFFICE 8.6

OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE LANDS THAT' ARE 8 . 7

SUBJECT TO THE POOLING OR UNITIZATION ARE LOCATED;

THE INTEREST HAS BEEN- USED IN UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE

8.8

<£> 8.11

OPERATIONS BY THE HOLDER;

(d) A DRILLING OR MINING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE 8.13

HOLDER, PROVIDED THAT AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THE NAME OF THE PERMIT 8.15

I

Page 61: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

«>

!• 7

HOLDER, THE PERMIT NUMBER, THE TYPE OF PERMIT, AND A LEGAL 8.16i

DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND AFFECTED BY THE PERMIT HAS BEEN FILED OR 8.17

RECORDED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5301.252 OF THE REVISED 8.18

CODE, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH 8.19

THE LAND IS LOCATED;

. <e)

DIVISION (C) OF THIS SECTION;

IN. THE CASE OF A SEPARATED MINERAL INTEREST, A 8.24

SEPARATELY LISTED TAX PARCEL NUMBER HAS BEEN CREATED FOR THE 8.25

A CLMM TO PRESERVE THE INTEREST HAS BEEN FILED UNDER 8.22

4

MINERAL INTEREST IN THE AUDITOR'S TAX LIST AND THE TREASURER'S 8.26:

DUPLICATE TAX LIST IN THE COUNTY IN 'WHICH THE LAND IS LOCATED. 8.27

i NO MINERAL INTEREST SHALL BE DEEMED ABANDONED UPON THE 8.29

BASIS OF FAILURE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DIVISION (B) OF THIS SECTION 8.31

PRIOR TO THREE YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION....

A CLAIM TO PRESERVE A MINERAL INTEREST FROM BEING 8.34

.DEEMED ABANDONED UNDER DIVISION (8) OF THIS SECTION MAY BE FILED 8.36

FOR RECORD BY THE HOLDER WITH THE COUNTY > RECORDER OF THE COUNTY 9.1

IN WHICH THE LAND IS LOCATED. THE CLAIM SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL OF 9.2

8.32

<£)

THE FOLLOWING;

BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5301.52 OF 'THE 9.4(I)

REVISED CODE; 9.5

STATE THE RECORDING INFORMATION, IF ANY, UPON WHICH 9.7(2)

THE CLAIM IS BASED; 9.8

(3) STATE THAT THE CLAIMANT DOES NOT INTEND TO ABANDON BUT 9.10

TO PRESERVE HIS RIGHTS IN THE MINERAL INTEREST DESCRIBED. 9.11

SUCH CLAIM PRESERVES THE RIGHTS OF ALL HOLDERS OF A MINERAL 9.14

INTEREST IN THE SAME LAND. ANY HOLDER OF AN INTEREST FOR USE IN 9.15

UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE OPERATIONS MAY PRESERVE HIS INTEREST, AND 9.16»

THOSE OF ANY LESSOR THEREOF, BY A SINGLE CLAIM, DEFINING THE 9.17

BOUNDARIES OF THE STORAGE FIELD OR POOL AND ITS FORMATIONS, 9.18

WITHOUT DESCRIBING EACH SEPARATE INTEREST CLAIMED. SUCH A CLAIM 9.19

ALSO ESTABLISHES PRIMA-FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF SUCH INTEREST 9.20

IN UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE OPERATIONS. 9.21

Page 62: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

»:i

8

t,

(D) A CLAIM FILED UNDER' DIVISION (C) OF THIS SECTION SHALL

BE RECORDED AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 317.18 TO 317.201 AND S301.S2

9.24

9. 25

OF THE REVISED CODE.*

A MINERAL INTEREST MAY BE PRESERVED INDEFINITELY FROM 9.28

THE PRESUMPTION OF ABANDONMENT UNDER THIS SECTION BY OCCURRENCE 9.29

OF ANY OF THE EVENTS DESCRIBED {M DIVISION (B)(2) OF THIS 9.30

SECTION,. INCLUDING SUCCESSIVE FILINGS OF' CLAIMS UNDER DIVISION 9.31

(C) OF THIS SECTION. THE FILING OF A CLAIM UNDER DIVISION (C) OF 9.32

THIS SECTION DOES NOT AFFECT THE RIGHT OF A LESSOR OF AN OIL OR 9.33

GAS LEASE TO. OBTAIN ITS FORFEITURE UNDER SECTION 5301.332 OF THE 9.34

'REVISED CODE.

THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY MINERAL .INTEREST 9.36

HELD BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY.

Section 2. That existing sections 317.18/ 317.20, 317.201, 10.3

and 5301.53 and section 5301.56 of the Revised Code are hereby 10.4

repealed.

<£)i

10.1

10.5

<

/

i

/ *

I

\

:

;

Page 63: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

*

¦; ¦

AU ¦ ¦As Reported by t'he^House Civil and Commercial Law Committee

. 117th. General Assembly. "

¦Regular Session

. . 1987-19.88 .

Messrs'

-1.4r • ¦

1.6

. 1 Sub. ' S. B. No. 2:23 1.7

i;J

1.8

i.io: .;'CUPP~SCHAFRATH-N£TTLE-*MRS . DRAKE-MR, BURCH,

y

•-•4 1.11

A BILL

.To' amend sections 317 . 08, "317 . 18, 317.20, 317.201, 1/14.

and '5301. 53> to -enact new' section 5301.56, and to 1.16

= - r> repeal section. 5301."'56 of '.the Revised Code to 1.17

, .provide a method for the termination . of dormant 1.18

. mineral interests and the vesting . of --.their title 1.19

in surface owners, - in 'the absence of. certain... 1.20

¦' -occurrences .within the preceding 20 vyears, 12^1-,

'' p including the filing -by^the bolder, of ( mineral. 1.22/ v r \ ( v

•interest of a preserving claim..

1.12J

jr

o-v y j.-.

;

• i V:

.1.23

i

.7 ¦be IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:

• . ¦¦ ¦; "v.. ¦ 'M : ' - . . •Section • 1. That sections 317 . 08 , 317 . 18, /31.7 . 20, -1317 . 201 , .1.28

• ' and'5301.53 be -amended and new .'section §3(51.56 of the Revised 1.30

Code be enacte.d to read^s follows:

, Sec. 3,17'. 08'.' '-

1.26 ¦

y1.31

Except as provided-- in division jF) -of this 1.34

of ,1.36

¦ * ¦ ; ¦ ' i . • , . •,. " , s-ectip'n," the cbunty: recorder shall keep five separate sets

records- as follows:. . _ . . • . > .

'(A)-' - A' record of dee$s," in which shall be J recorded- all

deeds and .other instruments of' writing .for the ' .absolute, .and 2.2 .

)

.2.1

unconditional. ' sale or '..'conveyance of lahp.s, tenements,, and 2;4 ^

hereditaments?-- all jiotipbsr as provided for-in 'sections 5301.47

to 5301.56 of. the Revised Code; all judgments 'or decrees in 2.7 '

actions brougbt-'under section 5303vdl' of the ^Revised Qode;' all .2.9 ¦

declarations and -bylaws as .provided for in see.fci<M?s-531lT8i-to 2.10

I , 53ixr22 CHAPTER .5311 . of the Revised Code; affidavits as provided 2.12

fo'r in section 5301.252 of the Revised Code? all Certificates as 2.13

" provided for in section 5311. 17- 'of the Revised Code; all articles 2.1'4

dedicating archaeological preserves accepted by the director of -2.15-

.the Ohio historical society under sect ion" 149 i' 52 of '."the Revised 2.16

' ' '7;?2.5

ir

. >I.-

y

¦'•v_.

1-

t:'h

It ¦

I;

Page 64: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

"I

¦»,

. 2

| Code; all articles dedicating nature preserves accepted by the 2.17

1 director of natural resources under section 1517.05 of the 2.18

<•Revised Code; all' agreements for the^jegistration of lands as 2.19

archaeological or historic landmarks under section 149.51 or 2.20

149.55 o'f the Revised Code; and all conveyances of conservation 2.21

easements under section 5301.68 of the Revised Code_[_ AND ALL 2.23

INSTRUMENTS OR ORDERS DESCRIBED IN DIVISION ( B ) ( I ) ( c ) ( i_i ) ¦ OF 2.25

SECTION 5301.56 OF THE REVISED CODE;

:

2.26i

(B) A record of mortgages, in which shall be recorded:

\ .

All mortgages, including amendments, supplements,

2.28

! 2.30(1)

2.32 'i modifications, and extensions thereof OF MORTGAGES, or other

instruments of writing by. which land's, tenements, or

hereditaments are or may be mortgaged or otherwise conditionally

sold, conveyed, affected, or encumbered? .

^2) All executory installment contracts for the sale of

' land executed afiier September 29, 1961, which by the THEIR terms

thereof are not required to be" fully performed by one or more of. ' ' I • .!

the parti-es thereto TO THEM within one year of the date of the

2.33

2.35

' 3.1

3.2

;3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7contracts;

{3) All options to . purchase real estate, including 3.8

supplements, modifications, *and amendments thereof OF THE 3.10

OPTIONS, but no such instrument shall be recorded if it does not ¦ 3.12

state a specific day and year of expiration of its validity.

1 (C) A, record of powers of attorney?

¦ (D) A record of plats, in which shall be recorded all 3.16

plats and maps of town lpts, of the subdivision thereof, and of 3.17

other divisions or suriveys of lands, and any center line survey 3.18

of a highway located within j;he county, the plat of which shall 3.19

be furnished by the director of transportation or county 3.20

engineer^ and all drawings as provided for in seeti-ons-SSll-rSi-fe© 3.22

5311^22 CHAPTER 5311. of the Revised Code;

«

3.13

3,14

\

3.23

A record of leases, in which shall be recorded all 3.24^7

X(E)

:leases, memoranda of leases, and supplements, modifications, and 3.25

amendments thereof OF LEASES AND MEMORANDA OF LEASES. 3.26

Page 65: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

* «li

f

3

All instruments or memoranda of instruments entitled to 3.27

record shall be recorder in the proper record in the order in 3.28

which' they are presented for record. The recorder may index, 3.29

keep, .-and record in one volume unemployment compensation likens, 3.30

federal tax liens, personal tax liens, mechanics MECHANIC'S 3.32

>

I

5

liens, notices of liens, certificates of satisfaction or partial 3.34¦) '

release of estate tax liens, discharges of recognizances, excise 3.36

and franchise tax liens on corporations, and liens provided for 4.1

in sections 1513.33, 1.513.37, 5111.021, and 5311.18 of the 4.2

i

;

V!

Revised Code. 4,3

The recording of an option to purchase real estate, 4.4 *

including any supplement, modification, and amendment thereof OF 4.6

THE OPTION, under this > section shall serve as notice to any 4.7

purchaser of an interest in the real, estate covered by the option 4.8

.only during the period of the validity of the option as stated-' in 4.9

1i{

>

the instrument. 4.101

(F) In lieu of keeping' the five separate sets of records 4.11-

required 'in divisions (A) to IE) of this section "and the records 4.12

required in division (G) of this section, a cQunty^recorder may 4.14

record all the instruments required to be recorded by 'this 4.15- V t ,

section in two separate sets of record books.- One set' shall be 4.16

called the "official records" and shall contain the , instruments 4.17

listed in divisions (A), (B), (C), (E), and (G) of this section. 4.19

4

The second set of records shall contain the instruments listed in 4.21

• - ' <?division (D) of this section.

Except as provided in division (P) of this section, 4.22

the county recorder shall keep a separate set of recocds 4.23

containing all corrupt activity lien notices filed with the 4.24

recorder pursuant to section 2923,36 of the Revised Code,

Secr 317.18. At the beginning of each day's business^ the 4.27

county recorder shall make and keep up general alphabetical. 4.28[

indexes, direct and reverse, of all the names of bothparties to 4.30

all instruments theretofore PREVIOUSLY received for record by 4.32

The volume and page where EACH such instrument is recorded 4.33

may be omitted until it is actually recorded if the file number 4.35

(G)

i.4. 25

r

v-.

him.

;••;!

Page 66: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

¦

5 4

:is entered in place of the volume or pager-but-such-f iie-number 4,36

may- be -emitted-£r©m-any—index-volume-in-use-art-Apr i±-2£r-"i896T~i£ 5 . 2

the—form-of-the-index-veiuffle-is-not-adapted-te-enteffing-the-f ile 5 . 3

number. The indexes shall show the kind of instrument, the 5.5

range, 'township, and section or the survey number and number of 5.6

acres, or -the permanent parcel number', provided for under section 5.7

^319. 28 of the Revised Code, or the lot and sublot number and the 5.9

part thereof, all as the case requires, of each ,tract, parcel, or 5.10

lot of land described in any such instrument ©f-wribing. The 5.12

name' of each grantor shall be entered in the direct index under 5.13

the appropriate letter, followed on the same line by the name of 5.15

the grantee, or, if there is more than one grantee, by the name 5.15

•of the first grantee followed by "and , others" or their ITS 5.17

equivalent. The -name, of each grantee shall be entered ..in the 5.18

reverse index under the appropriate letter, followed on the same 5.19

line by the name' of the grantor, or, if there is more than one 5.20

grantor, by the name of the first grantor followed by, "and 5.21

ofchers"'or their" ITS equivalent.

As to notices of claims filed in accordance with sections 5.24

5301.51 and^ 5301. 52^ AND 5301.56 of the Revised Code_j_ there 5.26

shall be entered in " the reverse index under the appropriate 5.27

letter the name of each claimant, followed on the same line by 5.28

the name of- the present owner of title against whom the claim is 5.29

asserted, if the notice contains the name of the present owner; 5.30

or, if the notice contains the names of more than one such owner, 5.32

there shall be entered the name of the first owner 'followed by 5,34

"and others" or" their ITS equivalent.

In all caseB of deeds, mortgages, or other instruments o€ 6.1

writing made -by any sheriff, master commissioner, marshal, 6.2

auditor, executor, administrator, trustee, or other officer, for 6.4

!;t

;

!

£

\; .

t

>

t?

5.23i

4

«

5,36

\

the sale, conveyance, or encumbrance of any lands, tenements, or 6.6

and recorded in the recorder's office, the 6.7hereditaments,

recorder shall index the parties to such instrument under their 6.8

appropriate letters, respectively, as follows: 6.9

Page 67: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

5

{A) The names of the persons represented by such officer 6.10

as owners of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments described in 6.12

any such instruments;

, (B) The official designation of the officer by whom such 6.13

instrument ef-wrirfcing was made;

(C) The individual names of the officers by whom such 6.15

• instrument of-wr-itirtg was made.

• In all cases of instruments filed in accordance with 6.17

seefci©«s-59ii?ei-te-53ilT29 CHAPTER 531K. of the Revised Code, 6.20

the name of each owner' shall be entered in 'the direct index, 6.21

under the appropriate letter, followed on the same line , by the 6.22

a. name of the condominium property, and the name -of, the condominium 6.23

property shall be entered in the reverse index under the 6.24

appropriate letter followed on the- same .line by the, name of the 6.26

owner of the property, or, if the instrument contains the names 6.28

of more than one owner^ there shall be entered the name of the 6.30

first owner followed by "and others" or its equivalent.

Any general alphabetical index eommeneed—affeer-dune-?- 6.32

shall be COMMENCED in . conformity to this section, and 6.33

whenever, in the opinion Of the board of county commissioners, it 6.35

becomes necessary to transcribe, on account of its worn out or 6.36' »

incomplete condition, any volume of sua eh AN index new in.^tse, 7:3' ' >

such volume shall be revised and transcribed to conform with /this 7,4

section; except that in counties having a sectional index in 7,5

conformity with section 317.20 of the Revised Code, such 7,7

transcript shall be only a copy of ^the original.

Sec. 317.20. When, in the opinion of the board of county 7.10

commissioners sectional indexes are needed, and it so directs, in 7.11

addition to the alphabetical indexes' provided for in section 7.12

317.18 of the Revised Code, the board may provide for making, in 7.13

' books prepared for that purpose, sectional indexes to the records 7.14

of all real estate in the county, beginning with some designated 7.15

year and continuing thifough such period of years as it specified, 7.16

by placing under the heads of the original surveyed sections or 7.17

surveys, or parts of a section or survey, squares, subdivisions, 7.1,8

L

jI

6. 14

6. 16

ii 6.31f

7.8

;

;:¦

i

Page 68: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

?. ,

• i

6

'or the permanent parcel numbers' provided .for under section 319.28 7.20

o.f. the Revised Code, o& lots, .'on-' the; left-hand page,, or on the 7;22

. upper portion of such page of the* index, book--, the following: '

... ¦" , 1 . ' •. '• '(A)' The name of the grantor? . ••

„(B) ' Next to' the right, the name of the grantee'; .

. ¦ (G');,The number and page of the record ."wbe;re the instrument 7.28.

jLs: .found recorded?

" '(0)

pertinent; description of the • property ¦ conveyed by the': deed, '7.32

lease, or assignment -of lease; ¦ , ' o ' " ' ,

On: the opposite page; or on the lower portion of the 7.33

, ' ' .• '* ' ¦ . * . 1 • ¦¦ ¦ * -same page,1 beginning' at ,the 'fedt.tom, in like manner, all the 7.34

, mortgages, liens, notices- as provided fob. in sections 5301.51 7.35 ^

op oth.erv -8.1 v'

8.3 .. i ' - , '

--The • compensation for the services rendered under- this 8.4 •

section -shall be paid' frofo.^.tfie general revenue fund ¦ of the 8.5

oount-y, -and no

such ;.ser vices.

\ ' . J ..I •;

"7.23

'- 7.24.

.7.26 *

1 .23' ¦'

The 'character of the instrument-, to be followed by a 7.31

• «

(E)

and^ 5301. 52-^ AND 5301.56 of the*' Revised ; Code ,

encumbrances affecting such real estate.

¦ »,

-. .

!

additional *i$y.y shall be . made in consequence, of

fn-fehe-event- that I'F the board

it ' shkll* agtveirti'

8.6

decides to have 8.8

Nse for three 8.9' such- . sectional

consecutive- weeks in one newspaper of general, ^circulation in the. 8.10 -

county for sealed proposals to do suh'h work a,s provided in' this 8.11

section, and shall let the work to the lowest and -best jJ bidder , 8.13

index, made-L

,

y >

. ¦*

and .shall - ,r&quire him to give bond for . the faithful performance ,8.14'

of the contract, in such, sum as-, the board fixes, and su'dh ' work Ik 15

shall be done to the acceptance of - the bereatt~o£-sapervtsion-and 8; 1-6

-*n3peefe*en^b€-peblie-e€€*ees AUDITOR OF STATE' upon allowance' by 8.18

' ¦ ' •/'. • . ' i /.such board. ..The board may reject any and all bids for the work, 8.19

.provided that no more • than, five cents shall be paid.;, for each ,8.20

entry of each tract pr lot of land. ' •

. * '/-'when brought- up and completed,- the county recorder shall 8.22

keep up the indexes described in.'-this section..

' Sec'. 317.20-i. The county' recorder shall maintain a boofc to 8.24

be known as the "Notice Index." Separate pages of the book shall 8.25 ¦

be headed the original survey sections or^urveys, or parte of 8.27."

r

v.8.21

k- .

rv•:? 8.23'.v.

v

<• ,

;¦!•;¦

h

Page 69: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

• »

7./

a section o'r survey, squares, subdivisions, or the permanent 8,i28'

-|f '• '.parcel numbers provided £qr under section 319.28 of the "Revised

Code, or lots. In this;, book^ there shall be entered 'the .notices 8.31 '¦

for preservation ;of .claims' presented-for recording .in conformity 8.32

with sections 5301.51 and

i ¦:v

•si

.

s

5301. 52^ AND 5301.56 of the Revised 8134±.

•<i. •; ' - '•in designated c6lum'nsi there shall be entered on the left-Code . 8,35.:f

« .hand page ;

9;i :(A) The name of. each claimant; . ' .

• ¦' . . ¦ . . - ' ¦(B) Next to the 'right, the name of each owner of title; 9.3

.

!(C) The' deed book:' number an,d page whepe the instrument 9 .-5

containing tjie claim has been recorded; ... ' ¦

{D) The type of claim assertedr-and-eru • .

-,ON the opposite page on the corresponding liney a ' pe-ttinent 9.11

description, of • the property affected as appears in such notice 9.13 .

SHALL BE ENTERED. . • .

9.. 6 .

' 4

9.81 . 5'• .5

Sec. 5301.53. The 'provisions , of sections 5301.47 to 9l'l6

530k . 56 of the' Revised' C'ode.T shall "¦ not be applied. TO BAR OR 9'.'18 -/ ?r .• T' '

" * " 9*^9

!?e-bar-eoy.,ANY lessor or his successor as reversioner *91 21.

of his right to possession on t'he expiration of any lease^ or any 9.22 '

' 1 lessee o£ his successor of his rights in and to khy lease^ EXCEPT

• as .mayvbe permitted' under section 5301, 56' op the revised code,- ¦ 9.2%'i

!

-!\ EXTINGUISH "ANY* OF-.THE FOLLOWING: '

(A)

(B) ' ,'fo—bar-oif-extinguish-any ANY easement or' interest in 9.J7

the nature of an easement created or held for any railroad or 9.^8

v '' 9;Ss*" • (C) T©—bar^or-ext.tngaish-any ANY easement or interest in 9.31

' • /• •*• the nature of an easement, the existence of Which ;is 'clearly 9. ..3,2- .'' ' ' ' ' 1

9.3-4'--.

public utility purpose;

0

* observable by physical, evidence of its use)

(D), T©--fear~ot~extingttish-aRy 1 ANY easement or 'interest in. 9j.36

the nature of an easement,- or any rights granted, excepted, or 10.1''

• reserved > by the instrument creating such easement or .interest , 10. 2&- ¦.

including any rights for future, use, if the existence of such l'CU'3

easement or interest is evidenced by the location beneath, upon, 10.4

or above any part of the land described in such instrument of any 10.;?1 » . ' . ,.y

pipe, valve, jroad, wire,- cable, conduit, duct, sewer," track,

1

"I-

i

Page 70: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

: V' ft

. J¦ 8,

/pole, tower, . or ot^er, physical facility and whether -or. ngtf the 10.8

¦existence of such facility is observable;; . ' '• V.

(-E) Te-ber'-or-extingaiah-any ANY right, title, " estate, or 10.11

interest in coal,, and any mining or other rights -- pertinent 10.12

• • ' ' . \theretb TO, or: exercisable in .connection therewith WITH ANY -RiGHT, 10.14

TITLE,' ESTATE, OR ^INTEREST IN' COAL;'• * . 1 .

t-F) To—fear—or— exbingtsish—any ANY mortgage recorded in 10.16

conformity with section 1701.66 of ¦ the Revised Code;

{G) 'Tb-bar-or-extingaish-any ANY right, title, or interest 10.19

of the United States, or of fehe-stafee-ef-ehi© THIS STATE, ; ¦ or OP 10.22

"any politfeal subdivision, body politic, or agency thereof OF THE 10.24

UNITED. STATES OR THIS STATE. * . . ,

Sec. 5301.56. (A) AS USED IN THIS SECTION;

{1} •' "H0LQER" .MEANS THE, RECORD HOLDER OP ,A MINERAL 10.29• V ¦ ' i ' ;

INTEREST, AND ANY' -PERSON WHO DERIVES HIS RIGHTS FROM, OR'. HAS A 10.30

COMMON SOURCE WITH, THE RECORD HOLDER AND WHOSE CLAIM DOES' NOT 10.31

INDICATE, EXPRESSLY OR BY CLEAR IMPLICATION, THAT IT IS ADVERSE 10.32

TO THE' INTEREST OF THE RECORD HOLDER. -

(2) •• ."DRILLING ' OR MINING PERMIT" MEANS A PERMIT ISSUED 10.34• ' , ' i

UNDER CHAPTER 150,9., 1513., OR 1514. OF THE REVISED CODE- .TO • THE 10.36

HOLDER- TO DRILL AN OIL OR GAS WELL OR TO MINE OTHER MINERALS.

\;{B)(T) ANY MINERAL INTEREST HELD BY ANY PERSON, OTHER. 'THAN 11.4

THE OWNER OF THE SURFACE OF THE LANDS SUBJECT TO THE INTEREST, 11.5

S.KALL BE DEEMED ABANDONED AND VESTED IN THE OWNER OF THE SURFACE, 11.7

IF NONE OF THE FOLLOWING APPLIES;

• (a) 'THE MINERAL INTEREST IS IN COAL, OR, IN MINING OR OTHER 11.11

¦ RIGHTS PERTINENT TO OR .EXERCISABLE IN CONNECTION WITH AN. INTEREST 11.13

IN COAL, AS DESCRIBED IN DIVISION (£) OF SECTION 5301 . 53 Of THE 11.15

REVISED CODE;

(b) THE MINERAL INTEREST IS HELD BY THE UNITED STATES, 11.18

THIS- STATE, OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, BODY POLITIC, OR. AGENCY 11.19

OF THE UNITED STATES OR THIS, STATE, AS DESCRIBED IN DIVISIO& (G) 11.20

OF SECTION 5301.53 OF THE REVISED CODE; .

(C) - WITHIN THE PRECEDING TWENTY YEARS, ONE OR MORE OF THE 11.23

FOLLOWING HAS OCCURRED;

10.9

;

/i10.15

. i

¦

10.17

10.26

¦i

I\ i

11.1

i

• 11.8

!r

i:

;;

11.21

i:

I11.24

, '

r

:

Page 71: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

9

, (ij THE MINERAL INTEREST HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OP A TITLE 11.26

TRANSACTION THAT HAS BEEN FI-3S2D OR RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE 11.28

COUNTY RECORDER OF THE, COUNTY IN WHICH THE LANDS ARE LOCATED;

f fri)

11.29

THERE HAS BEEN ACTUAL PRODUCTION OR WITHDRAWAL OF 11.31

MINERALS BY THE HOLDER' FROM THE LANDS, FROM LANDS COVERED BY A 11,32

I

-LEASE TO WHICH .THE MINERAL INTEREST IS SUBJECT, OR, IN THE CASE 11,33

-OF OIL OR GAS, FROM -LANDS POOLED, UNITIZED, OR INCLUDED IN UNIT 11.35

OPERATIONS, UNDER SECTIONS 1509.26 TO 1509.28-OF THE REVISED. 11.36 .

i!

CODE, IN WHICH .THE MINERAL INTEREST IS PARTICIPATING., PROVIDED 12.1

THAT THE INSTRUMENT OR ORDER CREATING OR PROVIDING FOR THE 12.3

POOLING OR UNITIZATION OF OIL OR GAS INTERESTS HAS BEEN', FILED OR 12.4

!

RECORDED -IN THE OPFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY IN 12.5

WHICH THE ..LANDS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE POOLING OR UNITIZATION 12.6

ARE LOCATED'; . . " 12.7

THE MINERAL INTEREST HAS BEEN USED IN UNDERGROUND 12.10

GAS STORAGE OPERATIONS BY THE HOLDER?

•ii

(iii)

12.11

¦r(iv) A DRILLING OR MINING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE 12.13

HOLDER, PROVIDED THAT AN' AFFIDAVIT THAT STATES THE NAME OF THE 12.14

1}

PERMIT HOLDER, THE PERMIT NUMBER, THE TYPE OF PERMIT, AND A' LEGAL 12'. 16

DESCRIPTION OF THE LANDS AFFECTED BY THE PERMIT HAS BEEN FILED OR 12.17

: RECORDED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5301.252 OF THE REVISED 12.18

CODE, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH 12.19«

THE LANDS ARE LOCATED;

A CLAIM TO PRESERVE THE INTEREST HAS BEEN FILED - IN 12.22

ACCORDANCE WITH DIVISION (C) OF THIS SECTION;c.

( Vi) IN THE CASE OF A SEPARATED' MINERAL INTEREST, A 12.24

SEPARATELY LISTED TAX PARCEL NUMBER HAS BEEN CREATED FOR THE 12.25

INTEREST IN THE COUNTY AUDITOR'S TAX LIST AND THE COUNTY ;MINERAL 12.26

TREASURER'S DUPLICATE TAX LIST IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE LANDS 12.28 1

ARE LOCATED.

(2) A MINERAL INTEREST SHALL NOT BE DEEMED ABANDONED UNDER 12.30

DIVISION (B)(1) OF THIS SECTION BECAUSE NONE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES 12.32

DESCRIBED IN THAT DIVISION APPLY, UNTIL THREE YEARS FROM THE 12.33(!

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION. 12.35

Page 72: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

"

v> 10

. .'(C)(1)- A CLAIM TO: PRESERVE A MINERAL INTEREST FROM BEING 13.1

DEEMED ABANDONED. UNDER DIVISION (B)(1) OF 'THIS SECTION MAY 'BE 13.2

FILED FOR (RECORD BY ITS HOLDER-. SUBJECT TO DIVISION (C)(3) OF 13.3

THIS SECTION, THE -CLAIM' SHALL BE FILED AND RECORDED 'IN ACCORDANCE 13.5

WI.TH SECTIONS 317.18 TO 317,20-1 AND. 5301.52 OF THE REVISED CODE, , 13.6'

AND SHALL CONSIST OF A- NOTICE THAT DOES ALL OF THE. FOLLOWING:

• ' (a) . STATES THE NATURE OF THE MINERAL INTEREST CLAIMED AND. 13.10

. .ANY RECORDING- INFORMATION UPON WHICH THE CLAIM IS BASED? ' ,

. (b) OTHERWISE COMPLIES' WITH SECTION- 5301. 5.2 OF' THE REVISED 13.13

'!l

13.7jI

•j

1i

..j;-.. CODE?• &

(C) STATES THAT THE' HOLDER DOBS NOT INTEND. TO ABANDON, BUT 13,16

INSTEAD T6 PRESERVE, HIS RIGHTS'" IN THE MINERAL INTEREST. -

' (2) ' A- CLAIM THAT COMPLIES: WITH .DIVISION (C) <1%) OF THIS 13.18

SECTION OR,. IF APPLICABLE, DIVISIONS ' { C|)*( 1 ) : AND (3) OF THIS 13..19

SECTION PRESERVES- THE RIGHTS OF' ALL HOLDERS -OF A MINERAL" INTEREST 13.21

IN THE SAME LANDS. ' " '•

i

ANY 'HOLDER OF AN' INTEREST FOR USE IN UNDERGROUND GAS 13.24

STORAGE OPERATIONS MAY PRESERVE HIS INTEREST, AND .THOSE OF. , ANY 13.25

LESSOR OF THE INTEREST,. BY A SINGLE CLAIM, .THAT DEFINES THE 13.27

BOUNDARIES OF THE STORAGE FIELD OR POOL- AND ITS FORMATIONS, 13.29. . s . 1 VS , ' . "

WITHOUT DESCRIBING' EACH SEPARATE INTEREST CLAIMED.' THE CLAIM IS 13.30

PRIMA-FACIE EVIDENCE QF THE USE OF EACH SEPARATE' INTEREST. IN :i3.3I

13.33

(3)

• UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE OPERATIONS. ,

A- MINERAL INTEREST MAY BE' PRESERVED INDEFINITELY 13.35(D)(1)

PROM BEING DEEMED ABANDONED UNDER DIVISION (B)(1) OF THIS SECTION, 14.1

BY THE, OCCURRENCE OF ANY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED IN 14.2

DIVISION (B)(1)(c) OF THIS SECTION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED 14.4

TO, SUCCESSIVE FILINGS QF CLAIMS TO PRESERVE MINERAL INTERESTS 14.5

' 14.6UNDER DIVISION (C) OF THIS- SECTION. - ' ¦

(2) THE FILING OF A CLAIM TO PRESERVE A MINERAL INTEREST 14,8: • . & -

UNDER DIVISION (C) OF THIS SECTION DOES NOT AFFECT THE RIGHT OF A 14.10

LESSOR OF AN OIL OR GAS LEASE TO OBTAIN ITS FORFEITURE UNDER 14.11

SECTION 5301.332 OF THE REVISED CODE.

V

;

• o.!

14.12;

1

;

Page 73: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

Ir

4r V

'v

-f; 11tr Section 2. That existing sections 317.08, 317.18, 317.20, 14,14

317.201, and 5301.53 and sectiorj 5301.56 of the Revised Cpde are 14.16

14.17

;•1

:•

Vhereby repealed.

•a ?

\r

i¦/ i

; .i

-.1I

/;

\v

t• ?

•1i, ?

t

?}

t•.

¦ !>

\

1r- \

?

%V

\

IV

f

5">¦

r¦: i-

f

7t

¦i

Page 74: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

¦¦;•

¦ •

r ' ••As Passed bjr the House 1.4

H7tlh .General Assembly

¦ . ' k • ' • 'VRegular Session.

1987-1988

MESSRS."'' CUPP-StHAPSATH-rNETTLE-MRS

1.6:!• ,

Sub. S. . B. No. '223 1.7

V1.8

"•I;

DRAKE-MR. BURCH 1.10

i 1.11 :i

vA • B I L L- 1.12

"To amend sections 317.08, 317.18, '317.20, 317.201, 1.14

5- and 5301, ^3, to enact new section 5301. 56, .and to 1,16 ••

. repeal section 53G1>;:56 of the Revised^Code to • 1,17

provide; a method - for • the termination of dormant 1*18 -

1

•5

: '

mineral interests and the vesting of their 'title 1.19

:in surface' owners, "in the absence of.-- - certain 1.20

occurrences. . wi'fchin • 'the preceding, 20 years, '

' r*

/

including tpe filing- by the holder of a - mineral 1.22

interest. of a preserving claim /¦1.23•v.f

V •/;! '

BE IT; ENAQTED BY THE GENERAL1 ASSEMBLY • OP THE ' STATE OF OHIO: 1.26

;• _ Section 1.' That section^ ; 317 . 08, 317 . 18, 317 . 20, 317.201, 1.28

_ and 5301.53 be amended and new section 5301.56 of the Revised 1.30

. Code be enacted to read as follows:

- *

. .1.31

Sec. "31*7 . 08 . -Except as 'provided. in division (F) of.^this' 1.34'

section, -tiie county recorder shall keep five separate sets' of 1..36

. i

. i

P ¦ s.

records as follows:

A record of deeds, in which shall be • recorded all 2.1

,deeds and other, instruments of writing for . the . absolute and.

' .unconditional:,"^ :'sale or ' conve'yanc^Coil^lands',hereditaments; all noticesr as providech-fc^-ia--^

to 5301.56 of the Revised Code; all judgments or decrees in 2\7

(A)

. 2.i

^tenements, and 2,4 ,

sections 5301.47 2,5 •'

¦s

¦!' . actions brought under section 5303.01 of the Revised Code; all '2.9

' declarations and bylaws as provided ffai ' in seet±ona-53l3rrei-fc© 2.101 ' 1 ¦

SBlif.aa CHAPTER 5311. of the Revised Coke; affidavits; as provided 2.12

fbr in section 5301. 25!2 of the Revised Code; all- certificates as 2.13' 1 7 v ' - ' - . -provided for in section 5311.1.7 of the Revised C&de; all articles .,2.14

'dedicating ^archaeological preserves accepted by th^director of 2.15

the Ohio historical society .under section 149.52 of the' Revised 2.16 '¦

¦ A

1

f .

*"/

)

Page 75: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

.*r~-

* '•r;-4f.-'

/•t . f

c ¦ . i r : r; *••j -

Code? ail articles dedicating nature preserves ''accepted, by -'.the, ;2-.l?

¦ s ''"i i- - ' ' ' ' ( 1 ' "director of natural :r.e'£ource.s . under section 1517 . 05\ of V the • '2 . 18.". ¦

; Revised i Codei-v all agreement's for the registration ,-o^ ''lands; 'as ''2,19''. '• -- '*•*,' • , *- ' i ' . - . ' '' ¦ * - ' . ¦ * , ,

' archaeologicalifor historic • landmarks under-.... section . U/49 . Sli/jor ;'2.20 --

• ' •' v- ¦ ' • * • \* • ; ••• / " ' ¦ . •: • :¦ '.• '"149v$>5 of -th|S Revised Qode; and all conveyances of conservation -- 2. 21'•>' ;¦

• easements-, under section 5301.68 of;, /.the Revised . Code ; 4 /'AND ALL' ''2v23¦ -i ¦ : j ' ¦ • . ¦ **"• - •INSTRUMENTS ' OUb- ORPERS ' DESCRIBE^' ¦/;' IN ' /.DIVISION ' £M) (1 ) (£)"(£!,)/ OF

SECTION 5.301, OF -THE REVISED CODE;. "/-''.J ' •v- • ,

( B ) . A record of mortgages, in which shall be recorded*

' '.V,'.,-' :/ ' ' '{!)' All mortgages

*

h

/

I

2.25-: ;

* •' ' 1 2.26

2f 28 :

'including',-: amendments >•, supplements, 2 .*30 -.

2.32 :

2.33

f

dfeficationsV,- and extension's ' •< thereof'-' OF MORTGAGES, 'Or- other-. .. , . . ' •- . / • :v : •- ' '

•v; instruments'" - : of ' writing by which; lands, tenements, - or• VA- * ¦• • • '• •• - • • • ¦ ¦ - • -

mo

¦ , • ¦ ¦ • ... I. , - s-v V

hereditament, are or may be mortgaged 'or otherwise ' condition-ally

':/i' M-v -'V' ,'v • •sold, conveyed, affected', -or encumbered; • - ..»•

2.35- "

{ ' -13*1v:-i

" { !?•}, All '^ecutory in-stariment^contract^ ;^for the sale of

lagd executed after September 29,t.1961, which by -the THEIR- /'• ' 'Si. ' ! ;:-r! V' > - -V- ,-

thereof., are riot' required ,to be fiiTly performed one dr moire of",:'3.5

the parties feheretd" TO THEM-Withi-n one/y^ar of :thM; date ¦ of/v/the/ .-3.6

cbrlferacts';-' ;.k

3.2{'

terms 3.4

Wy

T3.7

-

» )

estate', ' including ' 3.$

OF THE

.All options to ".purchase

supplements,, modifications, '' and amencSnents . fcheteof• "..I A . . ¦ ' ' • ! ¦ • • ' ' ' - -

. : OPT-iONS, : bu'tiko such -Iristr-umSnt stiall be recorded, if i^.does not". .'3, 1-2:

real

> ;:'V •3.1-0'

?• . t- -

'7.'state a, specific day and' year:-of expiration of its, validity.. . ,s

" .t! " i " •" - ' " ¦ " iV'¦ " A--.F®C03:^ of powers of attorney; ' ¦-¦

' 1 i DtV' \ ' '.record of plats';-' in 'which ''Shall be recorded all , >1, 16

¦ 3.13

3.14S

i

•-s plats arid mapfej? of town lots, .of the subdivision t^reof, arid of 3.17/.;,'

3.18. -M " other dibi.signs or surveys of lands, and any center line survey• . . ' . ] , • ; / • ' . . ' , ' 1 j ' . v. * t, - . ' .» ;

of a highway located within the county the plat ot whidh shall 3«19

furnished; b^; , the'"' director of transportation ' !-,0r county- -'3.20

. engineer^ aa'd;'':.all -"drawings as provided for in seehiona-5'3iiT8i~fe6 ,3.22 ..

CHAPTER 531-1. "-of the Revised .Code;

f¦ 1.

be-.V

;S.

3.23. :i ' .

of leases, ./in which shall, be/recorded all -3 . 24A ' recordtm! • j

• il- i ..memoranda pf leases, and .supplements-, ¦' modifications.*- . «and 3.2-5le" !

amendments bh.ere'ofOF LEASES ANb MEMORANDA OF LEASES'.'"p '• '

3.26 , !;il

V'Vi

¦ii

. <

Page 76: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

3

All instruments or memoranda of instruments entitled to 3.27

record shall he recorded in the proper record in .the order in 3.28

which they are presented for record. The recorder may index, 3.29

keep, and record, in one volume unemployment compensation liens, 3.30

federal, tax liens# personal tax liens, 0 mechanics MECHANIC'S 3.32

liens, notices of liens, certificates of satisfaction or partial 3.34

release of estate tax liens, discharges of recogni2ances, excise 3.36

and franchise tax liens on corporations, and liens provided for 4.1.

in sections 1513.33, 1513.37, 5111.021, and 5311.18 of the 4.2

Revised Code. 4..3

The recording of an option to purchase real estate, 4.4*"

including any supplement, modification, and amendment thereof OF 4.6

THE OPTION, under this section shall serve as notice to any 4.7

purchaser of an interest in the real estate covered by the option 4.8

only during the period of the -validity of the option as stated in 4.9

the instrument. 4.10

In lieu of keeping the five separate sets of records 4.11

required in divisions (A) to (E) of this section and the records 4,12

required in division ( G ) of this section, a county recorder may 4.14

record all the instruments required to be recorded by this 4.15

section in two separate sets of record books. One set shall be 4.16

called the "official records" and shall contain the instruments 4.17

listed in divisions (A), <B), (C), (E), and (G) of this section, 4.19

The second set of records shall contain the instruments listed in 4.21

<F)

division { D > of this section.

Except as provided in division <F) of this section, 4.22

keep a separate set of records 4.23

<G)

recorde^shallthe county

containing all corrupt activity^lien notices filed with the 4.24

recorder pursuant to section 2921.36 otb^e Revised Code.

Sec. 317.18. At the beginning of each day's business^ the 4.27

county recorder shall make and keep up general alphabetical 4.28

indexes, direct and' reverse, "of all the names of both parties to 4.30

4.25

r.

ii,

!all instruments theretofore PREVIOUSLY received for record by 4.32

The volume and page where EACH such instrument is recorded 4.33

may be omitted until it is actually recorded If the file number 4.35

him .

;;

i'

Page 77: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

*1

%

'f

4

¦Ais entered in place of the"' volume or pageT-bat-seeh-fiie-ntrmbef 4.36.

R\ay-be-©mitfeed~f r©rs-any-inde*--voiume-irn-ttse~oR-Aprii-21r-i8967-i€ 5 . 2

the—f©em*-of*-the-iftdex~veieme-i3~n©fc-adapfeed-t ©-enter ing-the-ftie 5.3.

number. The indexes shall show the kind of instrument, the 5.5

range, township, and section or the survey number and number of 5.6

acres, or the permanent parcel number provided for under section 5-7

319.28 of the Revised Code, or the lot and sublot number and the 5.9

i

i

i

part thereof, all as the case requires, of each tract, parcel, or 5.10

lot of land described in any such instrument of-writing. The 5.12

name of each grantor shall be entered in the direct index "under 5/13

the appropriate letter, followed on the same line by the name of 5.14

the grantee, or, if there is more, thari one grantee, by the name 5.15

of* the first grantee followed by "and others" or their ITS 5.17

equivalent. The name of each grantee shall be entered in the 5.18

reverse index under the appropriate letter, followed on the same 5.19

line by the name of the grantor, .or, if there is more than one 5.20

grantor, by the name of the first grantor followed by "and 5.21

others" or their ITS equivalent. ' .

¦ As .to notices of claims filed in accordance with sections 5.24

5301.51 and_, 5301. 52,. -AND Sj01.56 of the Revised Code^ there 5.26

shall be entered in the reverse index under the appropriate 5.27

letter the name of each claimant, followed on the same line by 5.28

the name of the present owner of title against whom the claim is 5.29

asserted, if the notice contains the name of the present owner,* 5.30

or, if the notice contains the names of more than one such owner, 5.32

there shall be entered the name of the first owner followed by 5.34

"and others" or their ITS equivalent.

In all cases of deeds, mortgages, or other instruments ©# 6.1

writing made by any sheriff, master commissioner, marshal, 6.2

auditor, executor, administrator, trustee, or other officer, for 6.4

the sale, conveyance, or encumbrance of any lands, tenements, or 6.6

and recorded inv the recorder's office:, the 6.f

recorder shall index the parties to such instrument under their 6.8

appropriate letters, respectively, as follows:

5.23

i

5 .36c

hereditaments.

6.9

Page 78: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

\

-5v

A) . -The-- • . names of'--the persons represented by such officer 6.10

g's owners-of the Ignds, '.tenements, or hereditaments .described in 6.12

'i ¦ . . . , -¦ i ¦ -...any .'such Instruments* _ •

•u... .. :-( B > -'.-"The., off icial -designation of the officer by .whom such -..-.6. 13

- instrument of-ye.iti.ng was made;;

:."-"{C). - -.The'1 individual 'hemes .'of the officers by whom' .'such'. 6.15- V ' * « .

. r-instr;Umen.t of-ytiting was .made,' ' i/;-' ' . , . . .' ;-'In 'all cases, of instruments 1 filed in . accordance with v -.6. 17

^ • ' • ' ' • • ' . :•sect.ieMJ39ii-ei-t«.-53iir|a CHAPTER 5311, of. . the Revised - Code, 6.20

' ' ' ¦ . . - '* '¦ " ' .• i i •••'¦ ' -.'the name *of , 'each owner shall -be entered i'in the direct index, 6.121

V v ' ¦ - • • •' _I'pnde^vthe/.apprQpriate. letter*/ followed pn the/ same; line by- the- 6.22

. ' » :naft$e of the - condominium property, and the name, of the condominium

¦ ' [ ' . ' V ' f - ' ' '• property , shall be entered in the reverse- index- under the 6.24

i . '¦appropriate"- "letter t-folldwed'ion the same1 line by the name of thfef,,.6.2 6

-''"'-owner :of the- prbper'ty, or, if-the instrument contains the names'/- ,. 6 . .28

I . ¦*. -q£ "-mere -than one - owner,' tt^fe shall be entered^ the name. ;<jf the,. 6.3.0

* first owner followed by "ah© others" or .its.* equivalent! -*f • 6.31* ¦ ."A ' - - ' - • ¦ - .

' . 'Any general "alphabetical -index" cem^eneed-^eftee-5ttne-?r 6.32

•' " 19ilr shall be^ COMMENCED-.'-- in • .conformity .to this'' section, " and 6.33 - • . . c '

whenever / in the opinion.- -of the board ofi'county commissioners, it '6.35<¦ . . . • ¦ - * --

- ¦ I - ' ' ¦ ' ' : ¦.. 'becomes, necessary to. transcribe, on account- of its" worn out or 6.36

• ''incomplete' condition, any volume • of segh AN index sew in use* 7.3 •

1 such volume ' shall be revised and, .transcribed .to con'form with this. .7.4 ,¦ - . • .

.. section? .except ..that in counties having a sectional, index* in '7.5

conformity with . section 1-17*20 To£* the , Revised Code, •' such,' 1.1':

transcript shall be only, a' copy of the original. . . - '- 1

. Sec.. ''$17.20. "When, in the opinion of the board' of county 7.10

..commissioners sectional indexes are needed, and .it sC'directs , in 7.11

. addition to the -alphabetical indexes provided for in section. 7.12

¦ 317 . 18'- of 'thf Revised Code', the boar^ may provide for making, in 7.13-

books prepfired for that purpose, "sectional vin3exes .to the records • 7.14

of all real estate in the county, .. beginning with, some designated 7,15„ • • . / . - ^ . - -v _ .

year and' continuing through such. period of years as it specified, .7.16 '

by placing under the heads of the • original -surveyed sections or 7.17 >

s&r'veys, or parts, .-pif a section or survey, squares, subdivisions, 7.18

¦- ;;

\

6.14

6.16

i. i

6.23

: v

' Vs

i

V • • •1

"7.8

.V/

!•'I

ii .

!

i:

'i

Page 79: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

6i'or the permanent parcel numbers provided for under section 319;. 28 7.20

of the Revised Code, or lots, on the left-hand -page , or on the 7^22

upper -.portion of- such page of the index book, the following-! .

(A) - The name of the grantor;' . J. '

" ' (B) Next to the right, the name .pf the. grantee?. ; ¦ .

{£) The number and' page of the record where the instrument

is found recorded; . '

¦ { D } The,-, character of the instrument, to be followed by a '7.31

pertinent description of the* . property conveyed by the deed, 7.32, _y • ¦ ¦ . ¦ .

lea^C, or assignment of lease ^ .... " • - . ' .

H->•

7.23

\ 7.24

7. 25

7.28 xt

7,29. ;

\x--.

:

(E) _ On the opposite page,, or on- the-, lower, portion of. the 7.33

same page, beginning at the bottom, in like manner, all the 7.34

. mortgages, lier£s„ notices as provided for in sections 5301.51 7*35 •

" andv 5301,-52^ AND 5301. 56 * of .the Revised Code, or other Vfi.lencumbrances affecting such 'real estate.

The compensation for the,., services rendered under- thib .8.4

section shall be paid from 'the general 'revenue .fund of the 8.5 v

8-X

*!*

county, and no additional levy shall be made in consequence -of 8.6

such services, in-the-evenfe-that IF the .board decides-, to /have 8.8

sectional index made^ it shall advertise fdr hree 8.9such

. consecutive weeks in ,one newspaper of general- circulation j&n 8.10

county for sealed proposals to do such work as provided in this . 8.11

section, and shall let' the work to the lowest, and .best bidder, 8,13

and shall require. him to give bond for the faithful performance . 8.14

of 'the contract, in such sum as the board fixes, and s.uch work 8.15

shall be dpne to the acceptance of the btteeatt-*©£-?3ttper..viai«n-and 8.16

inspeefeion-ofi-pabiie-offiees AUDITOR OF STATE upon allowance by 8.18

such board. The board may reject any and all bids for the work, 8.19

provided that no more than five cents shall be paid for each 8.20

8.21entry of each tract or lot of^land. _

When brought up and completed, the county "recorder shall 8.22

keep up the indexes described in this section. •V.

The county recorder shall- maintain

,be known as the "Notice. Index . " Separate pages of the- book shall 8.25

be headed by the original survey sections or surveys, or parts of 8;27

!8.23

Sec. 317.201 book 8.24

\,

Page 80: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

}• J

7V-"

a section or survey, squares, subdivisions, or the permanent 8.28

parcel numbers, provided for under section 319.28 of the Revised 8.29 •

Code, or lots. In this book, there shall be entered the notices 8.31*** TfrtTBTr.

for preservation of claims presented for recording in conformity 8.32

with sections 5301.51 and_£_ 5301. 52^ AND 530lls6 of the Revised S-.34

Code,. In designated columns^ there shall be entered on the left- 8.35

hand page-: .

5A

i

i \

(A) The name- of each claimant; 9.1;

\(8) | Next to the right, the name of each owner of title;

(C) * The,, deed book number and page where the instrument 9.*§

9.6

9.. 3

1containing the claim has been recorded; . ' .

(D) The type of claim assertedr-and^on^ -1 a '

ON the opposite page on' the corresponding line^ a pertinent 9.11

' description of the property affected as appears in such notice 9.13

SHALL BE ENTERED. • '

' Sec. 5301.53.

t^ie Revised Coder shall not be- .applied' TO BAR OR 9.18

EXTINGUISH ANY" OF^HE~POLLOWING: , _ ' „

fo-bae-any lessor or his successor as reversioner 9.21

""""Vs- . • _: of his right to possession on the expiration of any lease^ or any 9.22

lessee or his successor of his rights in and -to any lease^ EXCEPT 9.24

' AS MAY BE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 5301.56 OP THE REVISED CODE?, . \ . ~ -

?©—bar-oe-exbingaish-afiy ANY easement or- interest in 9.27

the nature of an easement created or held for any railroad or 9.28

public utility purpose;,

9.8•I,

The provisions of sections 5301.47 to 9.16

5301.56 of

9.19

(A)

9.25

<B)

9.29

To—ba*-«*-exfc±ngH*sh-any ANY easement or interest in 9.31 "

the nature of an easement, . the existence of which is clearly 9.32

observable by physical evidence of its use;

(D) To—bar-of-exfetngaish-any ANY easement or interest in 9.36

1?ke nature of an easement, or any rights granted, excepted, or 10,1reserved by the instrument creating such easement or interest, 10.2

including any rights for future use, if the existence ' of such 10.3

easement or interest is evidenced by the location beneath, upon, 10.4

or above any part of the land described in such instrument of any 10.7

pipe, valve, road, wire, cable, conduit, duct, sewer, track,

9.34

"J

Page 81: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

"J

£

\\

8

pole, tower, or other physical facility and whether or not the 10.8

existence of such facility is observable; '

. (E) To-bar-er-txtrngairsh-any ANY right, title, estate, or 10.11

interest in coal, and any' mining or other rights pertinent 10.12

thereto TO or exercisable in connection- therewith WITH ANY RIGHT, 10.14

TITLE, ESTATE, OR INTEREST IN COAL; . "

(F) To—bar—or—extingaish—any any mortgage recorded in 10.16

conformity with section 1701.66 the Revised Code;

(G) T.«-bar-or-exti«garsh-any ANY right, title, or interest 10.19

of the United States, or of the- s tea be-© € -Shi© THIS STATE, or OF id. 22

any political subdivision, body politic, or agency thereof OF THE 1Q.24

10.9

10 . 15

!

10. 17

fUNITED. STATES OR THIS STATE,

Sec, 5301.56'. (A) AS USED IN^THIS SECTION: 10.26v

(1) . "HOLDER" MEANS THE .RECORD HOLDER OF A MINERAL 10.29as

INTEREST, AND ANY PERSON WHO DERIVES HIS RIGHTS FROM, OR HAS A 10,30

COMMON SOURCE WITH, THE RECORD HOLDER AND WHOSE CLAIM DOES NOT 10.31

INDICATE, EXPRESSLY OR BY CLEAR IMPLICATION, THAT IT IS ADVERSE 10.32

TO THE INTEREST OF THE RECORD HOLDER-,

"DRILLING, OR MINING PERMIT" MEANS A PERMIT ISSUED 10.34(2)

UNDER CHAPTER 1509., 1513., OR 1514. OF THE REVISED CODE TO THE 10.36'*• > »

HOLDER TO DRILL AN OIL OR GAS WELL OR TO MINE OTHER MINERALS. 11.1

(B)U) ANY MINERAL INTEREST HELD BY- ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN 11.4

THE OWNER OF THE SURFACE OF THE LANDS SUBJECT TO THE INTEREST, -11.5

SHALL BE DEEMED -ABANDONED AND VESTED IN THE OWNER OF THE SURFACE, 11.7

IF NONE OF THE FOLLOWING APPLIES:

(a) THE MINERAL INTEREST IS IN COAL, OR IN MINING OR OTHER 11.11

RIGHTS PERTINENT TO OR EXERCISABLE- IN CONNECTION WITH' AN INTEREST 11.13

IN COAL, AS DESCRIBED IN DIVISION (E) OF SECTION 5301.53 OF THE 11.15-

REVISED CODE;

11 ,8

THE MINERAL INTEREST 'IS HELD BY THE. UNITED STATES, 11.18

THIS STATE, OR ANY- POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, BODY POLITIC, OR AGENCY 11.19

OF THE UNITED STATES OR THIS S^ATE, AS DESCRIBED IN DIVISION (G) 11.20OF SECTION 5301.53 OF THE REVISED CODE;

WITHIN THE PRECEDING TWENTY YEARS, ONE OR MORE OF THE 1.1. 23

11.24

(b} r.

i11.21

{£)

FOLLOWING HAS OCCURRED:

;

i

Page 82: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

•J

/ 9•«

(i) THE MINERAL INTEREST HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A TITLE 11.26

.TRANSACTION .THAT HAS BEEN FILED OR RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE 11.28

COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE LANDS ARE LOCATED;

(U_) . THERE HAS BEEN ACTUAL PRODUCTION OR WITHDRAWAL OF 11.31

'MINERALS BY THE HOLDER FROM THE LANDS, VrOM LANDS COVERED BY A 11.32

'-LEASE TO WHICH THE MINERAL INTEREST -IS SUBJECT, OR, IN THE CASE. 11.33

OF OIL OR GAS, FROM' LANDS POOLED, UNITIZED, OR INCLUDED IN UNIT 11.35

¦OPERATIONS, UNDER SECTIONS 1509.26 TO , 1509.28 OF THE REVISED 11.36

CODE, IN WHICH .THE MINERAL . INTEREST IS PARTICIPATING,. PROVIDED 12.1

THAT THE INSTRUMENT OR ORDER CREATING OR PROVIDING FOR THE 12. '3

P60LING OR UNITIZATION OF OIL OR GAS INTERESTS HAS BEEN FILED OR ; 12.4

RECORDED IN THE OFFICE' OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY IN 12.5

,11.29

i

WHICH THE LANDS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE POOLING OR UNITIZATION 12.6

ABE LOCATED;

GAS STORAGE. OPERATIONS BY THE HOLDER;

f12.7

THE MINERAL INTEREST HAS BEEN USED IN UNDERGROUND 1-2.10

12.11

A DRILLING OR MINING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE 12.13

HOLDER, PROVIDED THAT AN AFFIDAVIT THAT STATES THE NAME OF ...THE 12.14

PERMIT HOLDER-, THE PERMIT NUMBER, THE TYPE OF PERMIT, AND A LEGAL 12.16 •5

. DESCRIPTION OF THE LANDS AFFECTED BY THE PERMIT HAS BEEN FILED OR 12,17

RECORDED, .IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5301.252 OF THE REVISED 12.18

CODE, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY, RECORDER OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH 12.19

' THE LANDS ARE LOCATED? ; ^

(v) ¦ A CLAIM .TO PRESERVE THE INTEREST HAS BEEN FILED IN 12.22

ACCORDANCE WITH DIVISION (C) OF THIS SECTION; ' . -

E vi.);;

IN THE CASE OF A SEPARATED MINERAL INTEREST, A 12.24

SEPARATELY LISTED TAX PARCEL NUMBER HAS BEEN CREATED FOR THE 12.25!

INTEREST IN THE COUNTY AUDITOR'S TAX LIST AND THE COUNTYMINERAL 12.26

TREASURER'S DUPLICATE TAX LIST IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE LANDS 12.28

ARE LOCATED.

(2) A MINERAL INTEREST SHALL NOT BE DEEMED ABANDONED UNDER 12.30

DIVISION (B)(1) OP THIS SECTION BECAUSE- NONE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES 12.32

DESCRIBED IN THAT DIVISION APPLY, UNTIL THREE YEARS FROM THE 12.33

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION. 12-. 35

(

Page 83: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

a

10

A CLAIM TO PRESERVE A MINERAL INTEREST ;FROM BEING 13.1<cxu

DEEMED ABANDONED UNDER DIVISION. ( B) ( 1 ) OF THIS SECTION MAY BE 13.2

FILED FOR RECORD BY ITS HOLDER. SUBJECT TO DIVISION (C)(3) OF 13.3

THIS SECTION, THE CLAIM SHALL BE FILED AND RECORDED IN ACCORDANCE 13.5

WITH SECTIONS 317.18 TO 317.201 AND 5301.52 OF THE REVISED CODE,.' 13.6

AND SHALL CONSIST --OF A NOTICE THAT DOES .ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

STATES THE NATURE OF THE MINERAL INTEREST^LAIMED AND £3.10

„ A&Y RECORDING INFORMATION UPON WHICH(TH£ CLAIM, IS BASED; • *

(b) *' OTHERWISE COMPLIED WITH SECTION 5 301.52 OF THE REVISED 13% 13

13.7

\

CODE;

V (C) STATES THAT THE HOLDER DOES NOT INTEND TO ABANDON, BUT 13.16

INSTEAD TO PRESERVE# HIS RIGHTS IN THE MINERAL INT^RE'^T. .

¦ (2) A CLAIM THAT COMPLIES WITH DIVISION (£>(£) OF THIS 13.18

SECTION OR# IF APPLICABLE, DIVISIONS., .(C)(1) AND (3) OF .fHlS 13.19¦ ' V . . S . -

SECTION PRESERVES THE RIGHTS OF ALL HOLDERS OF A MINERAL INTEREST 13.21

IN THE SAME LANDS.

'(3) ANY HOLDER OF AN INTEREST ,'F<?R USE IN UNDERGROUND GAS 13,24s

, STORAGE OPERATIONS MAY PRESERVE HIS INTEREST# AND THOSE OF ANY 13.25

LESSOR OF THE INTEREST# BY A SINGLE CLAIM, THAT DEFINES THE 13.27

BOUNDARIES OF THE : STORAGE FIELD OR POOL- AND ITS FORMATIONS, 13.29* . h

" , WITHOUT DESCRIBING EACH SEPARATE INTEREST CLAIMED,. THE CLAIM TS 13.30

PRIMA-FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF EACH SEPARATE INTEREST IN 13.31

UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE OPERATIONS.

(D)(1) ' A MINERAL INTEREST MAY BE PRESERVED INDEFINITELY 13,35

FROM BEING DEEMED ABANDONED UNDER DIVISION (B)(1) OF THIS- SECTION 14.1"

BY THE OCCURRENCE OF ANY ' OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED IN 14.2- . 1 s,

, DIVISION (B)(1)(c) OF THIS SECTION, INCLUDING, ,'^BUT NOT LIMITED 14.4

' : TO, SUCCESSIVE FILINGS" OF CLAIMS TO PRESERVE' MINERAL INTERESTS 14.5

UNDER DIVISION (C) OF THIS'SECTION. . ¦ '

(2) THE 'FILING OF A CLAIM TO PRESERVE A". MINERAL INTEREST 14.8

UNDER DIVISION (C) OF THIS .SECTION DOES NOT AFFECT THE RIGHT OF A 14.10LESSOR OF AN OIL OR ' GAS LEASE TO OBTAIN ITS 'FORFEITURE UNDER 14.11

SECTION- 5301.332 OF THE REVISED CODE.

- *

¦ r>

t

13.33V.

V ;

14.6

C!c

14.12

Page 84: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

' A»i

s.

:•i

Sit:liy-/<

n:

¦* i.¦ 4

;•

¦i

11

)

^Section 2. That existing sections 317.08, 317.18, 317. 20> 1 4 .\1 4

317. -20.1, and 5301. 53 and section 5301.'56. of the Revised' Code are 14.16

14.17 ¦

?

hereby repealed4

'v ?s

;

¦•5

¦¦

>'V

a•>

%

v.-

>. .;

iv

Ii'-t

V > .

" * ,s ?y -

: e

i ;.1 i

%e •

-

i-r.'Xr)

tIS

¦t

i: tA .' v :•

;: * . 4;

*

¦r \ ;•

» \V

v* •

::*•?

' <

s .

i

.iv' 1 A . ^

,r''

¦ S ix/

:iV--

>\

- T-e

):V?¦ ! ¦»

!•:i'

r•> ;v<

%4

- \«

f. f-

r:1

!

1

?.v1-.

3

• r?A

Page 85: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

- >

PROPONENT TESTXMQNy ON BEHALF OF

SENATE BILL 223 AND HOUSE BILL S21,AN OHIO DORMANT MINERAL ACT

Ohio presently has a Marketable Title Act, R.C. §5301.47 et

seq., which became effective September 29, 1961., It was amendedSeptember 30, 1974 to exclude any right, title, estate or interestin coal and coal mining rights from operation of the Act. Section5 3.pi >4.$ of the- Act states that a .person has a marketable title to aninterest in land if he has an unbroken chain of record title for aperiod of not less than 40 years. Chain of title is then defined by

two clauses, the first of which states the case where the ch$in of

title consists of only a single instrument or transaction and the. second wherlr it consists of two or more instruments or.transactions. The Act provides that the requisite chain of title is

only effective if nothing appears of record purporting to divest the' claimant of the marketable title. . - ' '

*

, The obvious purpose of the Marketable Title Act is to simplify ,

land title transactions by making it. possible to determine — .marketability through limited title searches over some reasonable

period thus avoiding; the necessity of examining the record back to .the patent for each hew transaction. This is obviously a legitimateand desirable objective but in the absence of specific statutoryauthority,, interests created and interests appearing in titles prior

to that period would not necessarily be eliminated and wouldcontinue to be an impediment to marketability. Marketable TitleActs do not cure and validate errors or irregularities in

conveyancing instruments but bar or extinguish interests which havebeen created by or result from irregularities in instrumentsrecorded prior to the period prescribed by the statute and therebyfree present titles, from the effect of those instruments. In thisvery general senSe, the Marketable Title Act is curative in

character.

'r : The Ohio Marketable Title Act was based on the model MarketableTitle Act which was drafted by Professor Lewis M. Simes andClarence B. . Taylor as part of the Michigan research project, acomprehensive study undertaken to set up standard statutory language

to provide for the simplification of real estate conveyances. Atthe time of that study in 1959 > there were ten Marketable Title Acts

in effect, including Michigan's. The Michigan Act, which had beenin effect for 15 years and subjected to considerable testing andexperience, appeared to be tite best piece of draftsmanship andembodied the most practical approach for attaining the desiredobjective. The Michigan Act served as the basis- for drafting the .model Act. The Ohio Marketable Title Act was the tenth MarketableTitle Act enacted after the Michigan study and was patterneddirectly from the model Act.

It is apparent from the- legislative history of the OhioMarketable title Act and subsequent interpretation by courts and

!

:

,

1

\ '

:i

r

.

Page 86: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

?

;

\ . \

practitioners since its enactment that it was the general intent of

the act to apply to mineral interests except coal. Siates and „

Taylor, in their Model Act, pointed out that thesingle principal

provision in the Marketable Title Apt which makes it ineffective to

•bar dormant mineral interests is the provision that the record title

is subject to such interest and defects as are inherent in the

muniments of which the chain of record title is formed. This

provision is included in the Model Act, as well as the Michigan and

Ohio Acts. From a practical standpoint, any reference in the

recorded chain of title to previously-created mineral interests may

serve to keep those interests alive. This issue was the subject of

Heifner v. Bradford. 4 O.S\ 3d 49 (1983). In that case, the trialcourt upheld the validity of a severed mineral interest which was

based upon transactions In a chain of title separate from the titleclaimed by the possessor of the surface interest. The severed' "

mineral chain, however, contained transactions recorded during the

40-year period prescribed by the Act and the court held that

transactions inherent in muniments of title during the period

constituted a separate recognizable chain of title entitled to

protection under the Act. The Appellate court reversed in a

. decision acknowledging the fact that a precise reading of the

statute upheld the trial court^s decision but relied on legislative

history to the effect that it -was the intent of the drafters to

extinguish severed mineral interests. ' '

The Ohio Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals based upon

a strict reading of the statute. Due to this obvious limitation in

the Act, recognized by Simes apd Taylor and highlighted by Heifner,

it would appear that the Ohio Marketable Title Act is not generally

effective as a means of eliminating severed mineral interests.

As a general principle, minerals are not deemed to be capable of

being abandoned by a non-user unless they are actually possessed.

Ohio is in the majority of jurisdictions which hold that a severed

interest in undeveloped minerals does not constitute possession.

Michigan's legislators recognized the importance of including

minerals in those defects and errors which should be eliminated by

operation of time and non-use. The Michigan Act and the Model Act

provide an additional mechanism for the elimination of dormant

mineral interests which, when used in conjunction with theMarketable Title Act, is effective in accomplishing this goal. .Under the Michigan Act, owners of severed mineral interests are

required to file notice of their claims of interest within 20 years

after the last use of the interest, a three-year grace period Wasprovided for initial filing tinaer the. Michigan Act. Any severed

mineral interest deemed abandoned or extinguished as a result of the

application of the Michigan Act vests in the ow^ejTof the surface.

The major distinction between the proposed bill for

consideration by the Ohio legislature and the Michigan Act is that

the Michigan Act applies only to interests in oil and gas. It isapparent from the 1874 amendment of the Ohio Marketable Title Act

-2-

1

Page 87: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

¦

\

that the Ohio Legislature has deemed it advisable for the Marketable

Title Act to apply to all mineral interests except coal. The _

proposed Ohio Dormant Mineral Act has been drafted to conform "to the' Ohio Marketable Title Acjfc and apply to any mineral interest except

an interest in coal as defined by §5301. 53 (E) of the MarketableTitle Act. "The proposed Bill, if passed, would have lead to the

desired result as stated by the Appellate Court in Helfner ofterminating unused mineral interests not preserved by operations,

transfers or a filing of ^notice of an intent to preserve interest. •

\ The proposed bill also contains the essential elementsrecommended by the National Conference of Commissioners'' on Uniform-

State Laws at its annual conference in- Boston in August, 1986.have enclosed-,a copy of the Uniform Dormant Mineral interests Act-with prefatory notes and comments for your review. "

1?

:!

!

•i

I -•

California, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska,North caroling, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, .Tennessee, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin all have adopted

Dormant Mineral Acts. All but Pennsylvania, Virginia and Tennessee

have companion Marketable Title Acts.

;

|

Iil:! - ' -c:*-»¦

' , I believe that enactment of the Dormant Mineral Act' will,

v encourage the development of minerals in Ohio which have beenpreviously ignored due to defects in title. The development of

s minerals would lead to severance tax revenues and enhance the

. economy of areas of the state wpich may have no other source of

* revenue production. . . .- _ . S • A

I y feel that companies engaged in the development of minerals as

well- -As owners of property subject to title defects not cured by the

Marketable Title Act would benefit from the enactment of the

proposed dormant minerals statute. - -

This testimony was prepared and presented by William J.Taylor, attorney and partner in Kincaid, Cultice & Geyer,50 North Fourth Street, Zanesville, Ohio 43701, %(614)

454-2591. Mr. Taylor's practice involves extensive

mineral' title work and his firm represented the prevailing

party in Heifner v. Bradford, the leading Ohio supremeCourt case dealing with the Ohio Marketable Title "Act. Hefrequently lectures and writes articles involving mineraltitle topics, including "Practical Mineral Title Opinions"

; " and "The Effects of Foreclosing on Oil and- Gas Leases" ", * published by the Eastern Mineral --Law Foundation, He is a

1 member of the Ohio State Bar Association Natural Resources* Committee, 'the Federal Bar Association Committee on•> Naiural Resources, and the Legal Committee of the Ohio Oil

.and Gas Association. . - .

j

-3-

\

Page 88: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

\ •i ¦

i.

l

.i,-j

!

V/

&

UNIFORM DORMANT MINERAL INTERESTS ACT ' '

:

Drafted by .the

j

\{

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERSON -UNIFORM STATE LAWS

!

1

¦ ?and fey it •

>

¦;'P Approved and Recommended for Enactment .

in All the StatesA ¦i

4 ? ,

At its

5. ANNUAL CONFERENCE

MEETING IN ITS NINETY-FIFTH YEAR "IN BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS '

AUGUST i-8, I98S '

< i•

i j

•;

' ,

i

With Prefatory Note and Comments

;

*

?•:

r

Page 89: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

¦

¦¦¦¦• §¦r ' '

•i

.. II

•I;¦ i!

V UNIFORM DORMANT MINERAL INTERESTS ACT

, TheCpmmiteee that acted for the National Conference of Commissionerson Uniform State Laws in preparing the Uniform Dormant Mineral InterestsAct was as follows: ~ '

Wi JOEL- BLASS,1 P.O. Box- 160, Culfport, MS 39501, ChairmanJOHN II. DeMOULLY, Law Revision Commission, Suite

Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Drafting Liaison •OWEN L. ANDERSON, University of North 'Dakota, School of Law,

Grand Forks, ND 58202 . • . ,

RICHARD J. MACY, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, WY 82002

JOSHUA M. MORSSsp III, P.O. Box 11240, Tallahassee, FL 32302GLEE S. SMITH, P.O. Box 360, Larned., KS 675S0 ' >NATHANIEL STERLING* Law Revision Commission, Suite D-2', 4000

Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Reporter

PHILLIP CARROLL, 120 East Fourth Street, Little Rock. AR 72201,

President (Member Ex Officib) ...WILLIAM J. PIeRce, University of .Michigan* School of Law, Ann Arbor,

MI 48109, Executive Director ; - . .ROBERT H:. CORNELL, 25th Floor, 50 California Street, San Franciscb,

CA 94111, Chairman, Division E (Member Ex Officio)

Middlefield

\

sf#

1 ')

. . ' . Review Committee '

EUGENE F. MOONEY, 209 Rid geway Road, Lexington, KY 40502, Chairman

HENRY M. GRETHER, JR., University of Nebraska, College of Law, .Lincoln , NE 68583 '

JAME.S N . REEVES, Suite 600, 510 L Street, Anchorage, A.K 99501 ;

/

\

Advisors to Special Committee on ,

Uniform Dormant Mineral Interests Act

FRANK H. MORISON , / American By Association •LYMAN A. PRECOURT, American .College of Real Estate Lawyers

0

¦ *f

Final, approved copies of this Act are available on 8-inch IBMDisplaywriter diskettes, and copies of all*1 Uniform and Model Acts andother printed matter issued by the Conference may be obtained from:

:

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERSON UNIFORM STATE LAWS

645 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 510Chicago, Illinois 60611

(312) 321-9710

\

.

i<

• %

if

Page 90: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

\

t- '

I,

>!

(

UNIFORM DORMANT MINERAL INTERESTS ACT

PREFATORY NOTE ,i

Nature- of Mineral Interests

Transactions involving mineral interests may take severaldifferent forms. A lease permits the 'lessee to enter the landand remove minerals for a specified period of time; whether alease creates a separate title to the real estate varies from stateto state. A profit is an interest in land that permits the ownerof the profit to remove minerals;, however, the profit does notentitle its owner to possession of the land. SA fee title or otherinterests in minerals may be created by severance.

, A severance of mineral interests^ occurs where all or atportion of mineral interests are owned apart' from th.e ownership 'of the surface. A severance may occur in one of two ways.First , a surface owner who alsto owns a mineral interest may *reserve all or a portion of the mineral interest upon transfer ofthe surface. In the deed conveying the surface of the land tothe buyer, the seller reserves a mineral interest in some oe_&11of the minerals beneath the surface. Certain types of sellers,such as railroad companies, often include a reservation of 'mineral interests as a matter of course "iri all deeds,

. Second, a person who owns both the surface of the land >and a mineral interest .may convey all or a portion of the mineral

, interest to another person. This practice is common in areaswhere minerals have been recently discovered, because manylandowners wish to capitalize immediately on the speculative valueof the subsurface rights.

Severed mineral interests may be owned in the samemanner as the surface of the land, that is, in fee simple. Insome jurisdictions, however, an oil and gas right (as opposed toan interest in nonfugacious minerals) is a nonpossessory interest(an incorporeal hereditament). ,, - ,

Potential Problems Relating to Dormant Mineral Interests -

Dormant mineral interests in. general, and severed mineralinterests in particular, may present difficulties if the owner of

. the interest is missing or unknown. Under the common law, afee simple interest in land cannot be extinguished or abandoned

»' by nonuse, and it is not necessary to rerecord or to maintaincurrent property records in order to preserve an ownershipinterest in minerals. Thus, it is possible that the only documentappearing in the public record may be the document initiallycreating the mineral interest. Subsequent mineral owners, suchas the heirs of the original mineral owner, may be unconcerned

;

ro

¦)

1J ;

/

ii;i

>

V

)-i-

¦ y

1

/

V—

Page 91: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

siki.

££¦

!«SS«CJ . •*

i

5

about an apparently valueless mineral interest and may not even¦ be aware of it; hence their interests may not appear of record.

If mineral owners are missing or unknown, it may createproblems for anyone interested in exploring or mining, becauseit may be difficult or impossible to obtain rights to develop theminerals. An exploration or mining company may be liable to themissing or unknown owners if exploration or mining proceedswithout proper leases. Surface owners are also concerned withthe ownership of the minerals beneath their property. A mineralinterest includ.es the right of reasonable entry on the surface for

_ purposes of mineral extraction; this can effectively precludedevelopment of the surface and constitutes a significantimpairment of marketability.

On the other hand, the owner of a dormant mineral >interest is not motivated to develop the minerals sinceundeveloped rights may not be taxed and may not be subject toloss through adverse possession by surface occupancy. The

. greatest value of a dormant mineral interest to the mineral ownermay be its effectual impairment of the surface estate, which mayhave hold-up value when a person seeks to assemble an'unencumbered fee. Even if one owner of a dormant mineralinterest is willing to relinquish the interest for a reasonable .price, the surface own^r may find it impossible to trace theownership of other fractional shares in the old interest.

An extensive body of legal literature demonstrates theneed for an effective means of clearing land titles of dormantmineral interests. Public policy favors subjecting dormantmineral interests to termination, and legislative intervention inthe continuing conflict between mineral and surface interests maybe necessary in some jurisdictions. More than one-fourth of thestates have now enacted, spedlal statutes to enable termination ofdormant mineral interests, and some of the nearly two dozenstates that now have marketable title acts apply the acts tomineral interests.

es

i¦1 <r

i

»

Approaches to the Dormant Mineral Problem .

The jurisdictions that have attempted to deal with dormantmineral interests have adopted a wide variety of solutions, withmixed success. The basic schemes described below constitutesome of the main approaches that have been used, although manystates have adopted variants or have combined features of theseschemes.

a

Abandonment . The common law concept of -abandonment ofmineral interests provides useful relief in some situations. As ageneral rule, severed mineral interests that are regarded asseparate possessory estates are not subject to abandonment.But less than fee interests in the nature of a lease or profit maybe subject to abandonment. In some jurisdictions the scope of

' I .J 2

t

Page 92: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

v ;/

)

the abandonment remedy has been broadened to extend to oil andgas rights on the basis that these minerals, being fugacious, are

, owned in the form ''of an incorporeal hereditament, and hence" aresubject to abandonment. * " ,

' Tfce abandonment remedy is limited, both in scppe and bypractical proof problems. Abandonment requires a difficult

' showing of intent to abandon; rionuse of the mineral interest. alone is not sufficient evidence of intent to abandoh. However,

the remedy is useful in some* situations and should be retained* •. along jwith enactment of dormant mineral legislation. .

Nonuse, A number of statutes have made nonuse of, amineral interest for a term of years, e.g.,. 20 years, the basis

. for termination of the mineral interest. Such a. statute in effect; makes nonuse for the prescribed period conclusive evidence of

intent to. abandon. ; - ._ • f ¦ ¦

" • The nonuse scheme has" advantages and disadvantages. Itsmajor attraction is that it enables extinguishment of dortnant „

\ interests solely qn the basis of nonuse;, proof of intent toabandon is unnecessary. Its major drawbacks are that itrequires resort to facts outside the record and it requires a 1

' • judicial proceeding to, determine thq fact of nonuse. It alsoprecludes long-term holding of mineral rights for such purposesas future development, future price increases that will makedevelopment feasible, or assurance by a conservationorganization or subdivider that the mineral rights will not be * ,

. . exploited i , ' . . .

•j

<v ,

I

!

i_/•

j-

i

i. .

> '

The nonuse concept should be incorporated in any dormant ¦mineral statute. Even a statute based exclusively on recording,such as the Uniform Simplification of Land Transfers Act ¦

, ( USLTA) discussed below, does not terminate the right of a' person who has an active legitimate mineral interest but who /

through inadvertence fails to record. . .

Recording . Another approach found in several '> jurisdictions . as well as in USLTA, is based on passage of time

without recording. Under this approach a mineral interest is. extinguished a certain period Of time after it is recorded , -for .

example 30 years, unless during that period a notice of intent to, preserve the interest is recorded. The virtues' of this model arethat it enables clearing of title on the basis of "facts in the ,record and without resort to judicial action, and it keeps the , _ .record mineral ownership current. Its major disadvantages are "that it permits ah inactive owner to preserve the mineral rightson a purely speculative basis, and to hold out for nuisance moneyindefinitely, and it creates the possibility that actively producingmineral rights will be lost through inadvertent failure to recorda notice of intent to preserve the mineral rights. The recordingconcept is useful, however, and should be & key element in anydormant mineral legislation. -

?b

. *

4

j

3

S

.i

•tri :

i .

Page 93: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

¦rt

& '

M

2'Trust for unknown mineral owners. A quite different

approach' to protecting the rights of mineral owners is found in anumber 'of jurisdictions, based 6n the concept of a trust fundcreated for unknown mineral owners. The basic purpose of suchstatutes is to- permit development of the minerals even thoughnot all mineral owners can be located, paying into a trust theshare of the proceeds allocable to the absent owners. Theusefulness of this scheme is limited iri one of tte main situationswe are, concerned with, which is to enable surface developmentwhere there is no substantial mineral value. The committee hasconcluded that this Concept is beyond the scope of the dormantmineral statute, although it. could be the subject of a subsequentact. ' ' " ' • •

¦¦v;

-4

Escheat. A few states have treated dormant minerals asabandoned property subject to escheat. This concept is similar .to the treatment given personal property in th^ UniformUnclaimed Property' Act. This approach has the sameshortcomings as the trust for unknown mineral owners.

Consti tu tionaUty . Constitutional issues have beerNraised\concerning .retroactive application, of a dormant mineral statute toexisting mineral interests. The leading case, Texaco v. Short,454 U.S. 516 (1382), held the Indiana dormant mineral statuteconstitutional by -a. na'rrow 5-4 margin. The Indiana statuteprovides that a mineral right lapses if it is not used for a periodof 20 years and no reservation of rights is recorded during thattime. Mo prior notice, to the mineral owner is required. Thestatute includes a two-year grace period after enactment duringwjtiph notices of preservation of the mineral interest may berecorded. . .

: •

I!ii

• *

i

¦ A combination nonuefe/ recording scheme thus satisfiesfederal due process requirements. Whether such a scheme would"satisfy the. due process requirements of the various states is notclear. Comparable dormant mineral legislation has been voidedby several state courts for failure to satisfy state due processrequirements. Uniform Legislation, if it is to succeed in allstates where it is enacted, will need to "be clearly constitutionalunder various state standards. This means that some sort ofprior notice to the mineral owner is most likely necessary. .

Draft Statute " ' .

A combination of approaches appears to be best for ,uniform legislation. The politics of this area of the law arequite intense in the mineral producing states, and the positionsand interests of the various pressure groups differ from* state tostate. It should be remembered that the dormant mineral portionof USLTA was felt to be the most controversial aspect of thatact.

I

;

- .

, **

It

s

4

Page 94: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

ft5

i

f i

i

V '

A- statute that combines a number of different protectionsfor the mineral owner, but that still enables termination of -dormant mineral rights, is likely to be the most successful.Such a combination may also help ensure the constitutionality oftne'act from state -to state. For these reasons, the draft statutedeveloped by the committee consists of a workable combination ofthe most widely accepted approaches found in jurisdictions withexisting dormant mineral legislation , together with prior noticeprotection for the mineral owner. ¦

, Under the draft statute, the surface owner may bring anaction to terminate a mineral interest that has been dormant for .20 years, provided the record also evidences no\activity _

involving the mineral interest during that period, the owner of

the mineral interest fails to record a notice of intent to preserve 'the mineral interest within that period, and no taxes are paid onthe mineral interest within that period. To protect the rights ofa dormant mineral owner who through inadvertence fails to 'record, the statute enables late recording upon payment of thelitigation expenses incurred by the surface owner; this remedy"is not available to themineral owner, however, if the mineralinterest has been dormant for more than 40 years (i.e., there .

has been no use, taxation, or recording of any kind affectingthe minerals for. that period). The statute provides a two-yeargrace period for owners of mineral interests to record a notice of .intent to preserve interests that would be immediately or within,

a short period affected by enactment of the statute.- , , •* - ' • • • j .

This procedure will assure that active or valuable mineralinterests are protected, but will not place an undue burden onmarketability . The combination of protections will help ensurethe fairness, ds well as the constitutionality, of the statute.

The committee beiieves that clearing title to real propertyshould not be an end in itself and should not be achieved at theexpense of a mineral owner who -wishes to retain the mineralinterest. In many cases the interest was negotiated andbargained for and represents a substantial investment. The /objective is to clear title, of worthless mineral interests andmineral interests about which no one cares. The draft statuteembodies this philosophy.

!

* ,

!i

i

i!1

sf

:! t

;« ¦¦

. i

}

: i:

;

if7

I ./

I*/

5

• r

: ?

Page 95: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

C7"i

UNIFORM DORMANT MINERAL INTERESTS ACT

SECTION X. STATEMENT OF POLICY.' * y

(a) The public policy of this State is to enable and* ^ r,

encourage marketability of real property and to mitigate the

adverse effect of dormant mineral interests on the full use and

development of both surface estate and mineral interests in real

property.

(b) This [Act] shall be construed to effectuate its

purpose to provide a means for termination of dormant mineral

interests that impair marketability of real property,

. COMMENT ..." ¦ 5 •' ¦, W ¦ ¦ .

This section is a legislative finding and declaration of thesubstantial interest of' the state in dormant mineral legislation.

i

SECTION 2. PEFINITIONS. , ! ,

As used in this [Act]: ' '

(1) "Mineral interest" means an interest in a mineral

estate, however created and regardless of form, whether

absolute or fractional, divided or undivided, corporeal or

incorporeal, including a fee simple or any lesser interest or any

kind of royalty, production payment, executive right, •¦ ¦

nonexecutive right, leasehold, or . lien, in minerals, regardless of

character. - j

!

!

i

i

(2) "Minerals" includes gas, oil, coal, other gaseous,

liquid, and solid hydrocarbons, oil shale, cement" -material, sand

and gravel, road material, building stone, chemical substance,

gemstone, metallic, fissionable, and nonfissionable ores, colloidal

!

s

Page 96: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

!I

•5

,?!

¦ 1

and other clay,/ steam and"other geothermal resource, and any

other stibstanc^ defined as a mineral by the law of this State.' , i • '

. • • COMMENT

The definitions in this section are broadly drafted to• include all the] various forms of minerals and mineral interests.

This includes both fugacious and nonfugacious, as well asorganic and ih'organic, minerals. The Act does not distinguishamong minerals based on their character, but treats all mineralsthe same. .-,1

' * ' 1

Tife reference to liens in paragraph (1) includes both

contractual lahd noncontractual, voluntary and involuntary, lienson minerals and mineral interests. It should be noted that theduration of a lien may be subject to general laws governingliens. For example, a lien that by state law has a duration of10 years mayjnot be given a life of 20 years simply by recordinga notice of intent to preserve the lien purfcuant to Section 5(preservation'^ of mineral interest, by notice), just as a minerallease which by its own terms has a duration of five years is notextended by recordation of a notice of Intent to preserve thelease. Likewise, if state law requires specific filings, -recordings or other acts for enforceability of a lien, those actsmust be complied with even though the lien is not dormant withinthe. meaning of this Act. Conversely, an instrument that creates

a security interest which, by its terms, endures more than20 years, cahnot avoid the effect of the 20-year statute. SeeSection';4,(q)j (termination of dormant mineral interest).

The definition of "minerals" in paragraph (2) is inclusiveand not exclusive. "Coal" and other solid hydrocarbons withinthe meaning] of paragraph (2) includes lignite, ieonardite, andother grades of coal. This Act is not intended to affect waterlaw but is intended to affect minerals dissolved or suspended inwater. Se^ Section 3 (exclusions).

While' Section 2 defines the term "minerals" and "-mineralinterest" broadly, the definitions serve the limited function ofdetermining mineral interests that are terminated pursuant to -this Att. 'They are not intended to redefine minerals andmineral interests for purposes of state law other than this Act.

1

- •!SECTION 3, EXCLUSIONS.• I V-/

(a) ( This fAct) does not apply to:

1 ' ¦

£l) a mineral interest of the United States or an Indian

federal law; ortribe, expept to the extend permitted by

7

" v.

\¦!

?;

¦ iI

?

Page 97: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

•J

{{

¦i: i

¦ (2) a mineral interest of this State or an agency or

political subdivision' of this State, except to the extent permitted

by state law other than this [Act).

* (b) This [Act] does not affect water rights.

COMMENT

Public entities are excepted by this section because theyhave perpetual existence and can be located if it becomesnecessary to terminate by negotiation a mineral interest held bythe public entity. A jurisdiction enacting this statute shouldalso exclude from its operation interests protected by statute,such as environmental or natural resource conservation orpreservation statutes.

This Act does not affect mineral interests of Indian tribes,groups, or individuals (including corporations formed under theAlaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 13.5. C. S 1600 et seq.)to the extent that the interests are protected against divestitureby superseding federal treaties or statutes.

Although this Act affects minerals dissolved or suspendedin water, it is not intended to affect water law. See Comment toSection 2 (definitions) .

While Section 2 (definitions)' defines the terras "minerals",and "mineral interest" broadly, the definitions sertfe the limitedfunction of determining mineral interests that are terminatedpursuant to this Act. They are not intended to redefineminerals and mineral interests for purposes of state law otherthan this Act.

n

,

/:!

I

SECTION 4. TERMINATION OF DORMANT MINERAL

INTEREST. - ;

. (a) "The surface owner of real property subject to a

mineral interest may maintain an action to'^terixdn&te-a dormant

mineral interest. A mineral interest is dormant for the purpose

of this (Act) if the interest is unused within the meaning of

subsection (b) for a period of 20 or more years next preceding

commencement of the action and has not been preserved pursuant

to Section 5. The action must be in the nature of and requires

8

j

Page 98: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

{; .

if

the same notice as is required in an action to quiet title. The

action may be maintained whether or not the owner of the

mineral interest or the owner's whereabouts is known or

unknown. Disability or lack of knowledge of any kind on the

part of any person does not suspend the running of the 20-year . ^

period.

(b) For the purpose of this section, : any of the following

actions' taken by or under authority of the owner of a mineral' • l %

interest in relation tflTany. mineral that is part of the mineral

interest constitutes use of the entire mineral interest:

;

;

. (1) Active mineral operations on or below the surface

of the real property or other property unitized or pooled, with

the real property, including production, geophysical exploration,

^exploratory or developmental drilling, mining, exploitation, and

development, but not including injection of substances for

purposes of disposal or storage. Active mineral operations

constitute use of any mineral interest owned by any person in

any mineral that is the object of the operations.

' (2) Payment of taxes on a separate assessment of the

mineral interest or of a transfer or severance tax relating to the

mineral interest. -

¦Ia¦ii

t

(3) Recordation of an instrument that creates,

reserves , or otherwise evidences a' claim to or the continued

existence of the mineral interest, including an instrument that

Hecbrd&tion of antransfers, leases, or divides the interest,

instrument constitutes use of (i) any recorded interest owned by

any person in any mineral that is the subject of the instrument,

9

•/

¦¦

Page 99: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

V

.•

I

¦

. and. (ii) any recorded mineral interest in the property owned by

any party to the instrument. '

(4> Recordation of a judgment or decree that makes

specific reference to the mineral interest.

is section applies notwithstanding any provision to

the contrary in the instrument that creates, reserves, transfers,

leases, divides, or otherwise evidences the claim to or the

continued existence of the mineral interest or in another

recorded document unless the instrument or other recorded '

document provides an earlier termination date,,

' COMMENT

• This section defines dormancy for, the purpose oftermination of a mineral interest pursuant to this Act. Thedormancy period selected is 20 years — a not uncommon periodamong the various jurisdictions. •

Subsection (a) provides for a court proceeding in thenature of a quiet title action to terminate a dormant mineralinterest. The device of a court proceeding ensures notice to themineral owner personally or by publication as may be appropriateto the circumstances and a reliable determination of dormancy.

Subsection (b) ties the determination of dormancy tononuse. Each paragraph of subsection (b) describes an activitythat constitutes use of a mineral interest for purposes of thedormancy determination. In addition, a mineral interest is notdormant if a notice of intent to preserve the interest is recordedpursuant to Section 5 (preservation of mineral interest).

Paragraph (b)(1) provides for preservation of a mineralinterest by active mineral operations. Repressuring may beconsidered an active mineral operation if made for the purpose ofsecondary recovery operations. A shut-in well is not an activemineral operation and therefore would ^not suffice to save themineral interest from dormancy. ,

Paragraph (b)(1) is intended to preserve in its entirety amineral interest where there are active operations directedtoward any mineral that is included within the interest. Thus,if there are fractional owners of a mineral interest, activity byone owner Is considered activity by all owners. Other interestsowned by other persons in the minerals that are the object of

(c)f

-

•iii «•<

71

ji

i

;

$

10

i?

Page 100: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

!

!s

the operations are also preserved by the operations. Forexample, oil an,d gas operations by a fractional oil, gas, and coal

owner, would save not only the interests of other fractional oiland gas owners but also the interests of oil and gas lessees androyalty owners holding under either the col and gas owner orany fractional owner, as well as the interests of holders of anyother mineral interest in the oil and gas that is the object of the

operations. The oil and gas operations suffice to save the coalinterest of the pil, gas, and coal owner, as well as otherminerals included in any of the affected mineral interests, notjust the interest\Qoifr and gas that is the subject of theparticular operations. This is the case regardless whether themineral interest was* acquired in one instrument or by severalinstruments. However, oihend gas. operations by a fractionaloil, gas, and coal owner woukLnot save the mineral interest of a

fractional coal owner if the interest does not include oil and gas. ,

Under paragraph (b)(2)., taxes must be actually paid

within the preceding 20 years to suffice as a qualifying use ofthe mineral interest .

- Paragraph (b)(3) is intended to cover any recordedinstrument evidencing an intention to own or affect an interest

in. the minerals, including a recorded oil, gas or' mineral lease,regardless whether- such a lease is recognized as an interest in ,land in the particular jurisdiction. .

Under paragraph (b)(3), recordation has the effect ofpreserving not only the interests of the parties to theinstrument in the minerals that are the subject of theinstrument, but also, the recorded interests of nonparties in thesubject minerals, as well as other recorded interests of theparties in other minerals in the same *property. Thus,recordation of an oil and gas lease between a fractional ownerand lessee preserves the interest in oil and gas not only of thefractional owner but also of the co-owners; moreover, therecordation preserves the interest of the fractional owner inother minerals that are not the subject of the lease, whether theother minerals were acquired by the same instrument by whichthe,. oil and gas interest was acquired or by a separateinstrument . .

4"I

;•

ij

?

1

5J

• ¦ Ir

¦ f

i

- i

Recordation of a judgment or decree underparagraph (b)(4) includes entry or recordation in a judgmentl>ao^in e jurisdiction where such an entry or recordationbecomes part of the property records . The judgment or decreemust make specific reference to the mineral interest in order topreserve it. Thus, a general judgment lien or other recordationof civil process such as an attachment or sheriffs deed of anonspecific nature would not constitute use of the mineralinterest within the meaning of paragraph (b)(4).

(.

4

¦1 11

/

AB

Page 101: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

*>

•Sfc-- "l;

!

Subsection (c) is intended to preclude a mineral ownerfrom evading the purpose of this Act by contracting for a verylong or indefinite.,duration of the mineral interest. A Uen onminerals having a 30-year duration, for example, would besubject to termination after 20 years under this Act if then? 'were no further activities involving the minerals or mineralinterest. A person seeking to keep the lien for its full 30-yearduration could do so by recording a notice of intent to preservethe lien pursuant to Section S (preservation of -mineral interestby notice) . It should be noted that recordation of a notice ofintent to preserve the lien would not extend the lien beyond thedate upon which it terminates by its own terms. -

^ SECTION 5. PRESERVATION OF MINERAL INTEREST BY

NOTICE.

, (a) Ah owner of a mineral interest may reeord at any time

a notice of intent to. preserve the mineral interest or a part

thereof. The mineral interest is preserved in each county in

which the notice is recorded. A mineral interest is not dormant

if the notice is recorded within 20 years next preceding

commencement of the action to terminate the mineral, interest or

pursuant to Section 6 after commencement of the action.

(b) The notice may be executed by an owner of the

mineral interest or by another person acting on behalf of the ,

„• owner, including an owner who is under a disability or unable to

assert a claim on the owner's own behalf or whose identity

cannot be established pr is uncertain at the time of execution of

the notice. The notice may be executed by or on behalf of a

co-owner for the benefit of any or all co-owners or by or on .

behalf of an owner for the benefit of any or &U persons claiming

under .the owner or persons under whom the owner claims.

(c) The notice must contain the name of the owner of the

mineral interest or the co-owners or other persons for whom the

. *

12

Page 102: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

ii*

s.

mineral interest. i9 to be preserved or, if the identity of the

owner cannot be established or is uncertain, the name of the

class of which the owner is a member, and must identify the

mineral interest or part thereof to be preserved by one of the

following means:

i

i

. (1) A reference to the location in the records of the

instrument that creates, reserves, or otherwise evidences the

%

interest or of the judgment or decree that confirms the interest.

<2) A legal description of the mineral interest. [If the

owner of a mineral interest claims the mineral interest under an -

instrument that is not of record or claims under a recorded

instrument that does not specifically identify that owner, a legal

description is not effective to preserve a mineral interest unless

accompanied by a reference to the name of the record owner

under whom the owner of the mineral interest claims. In such a

case, the record of the notice of intent to preserve the mineral

interest must be indexed sender the name of the record owner as

well as under the name of the owner of the mineral interest.]

(3) A reference generally and without specificity to

any or all mineral interests of the owner in any real property

situated in the county. The reference is not effective to

preserve a particular mineral interest unless there is, in the

county, in the name of the person claiming to be the owner of

the interest, (i) a previously recorded instrument that creates,

reserves, or otherwise evidehces that interest or (ii) a judgment

or decree that confirms that interest. •-

¦v

;]

Ij

f

13

Page 103: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

. ... , >

!

COMMENTk" ¦

$&> . 4 J** "bi section is broadly drawn to permit a mineral owner to

only his or her own interest but also any or all|^jKrest's;>- For example, the mineral owner may share^^dth-;one or more other persons. This section permitsHplflfc ' require the mineral owner to preserve the interests

co-owners by specifying the interests to be

K'-; ;-/Mlcpwi«e , the mineral interest being preserved mayoverriding royalty or sublease or executive

p- in;'*!jig situation, the mineral owner may elect also to¦ or all of the interests subject to it, by specifyingin the notice of intent to preserve. The mineral

owher may also elect to preserve the interest as to some or all ofthe minerals included in the interest.

.'V

•r

Where the mineral interest being preserved is of limitedduration, recordation of a notice under this section does hotextend the interest beyond the time the interest expires by itsown terms. Where the mineral interest being preserved is alien, recordation of the notice does not excuse compliance with,any other applicable conditions or requirements for preservationof the lien.

i;n

;

The bracketed language in paragraph (c)(2) is for usea jurisdiction that does not have a tract index system. It isintended to assist in indexing a notice of intent to preserve aninterest despite a gap in the recorded mineral chain of title.

Paragraph (c)(3) permits a blanket recording as to all-interests in the county, provided that there is a prior recordedinstrument, or a judgment whether or not recorded, thatestablishes the name of the mineral owner in the county records.The blanket recording provision is a practical necessity for largemineral owners. Where a county does not have a general indexof grantors and grantees, it will be necessary to establish aseparate index of notices of intent to preserve mineral interestsfor purposes of the blanket recording. ,

J

SECTION 6. LATE RECORDING BY MINERAL OWNER.

(a) In this section, "litigation expenses" means costs and

expenses that the court determines are reasonably and

necessarily incurred in< preparing for and prosecuting1 an' action,

including reasonable attorney's fees.

;

«

¦¦l

14m

Page 104: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

'5

I

¦ i

. 1

(b) In an action to terminate a mineral interest pursuant'r • • «

to this (Act'], the court shall permit the owner of the mineral ,

interest to record a late, notice of intent to preserve the mineral

interest as a condition of dismissal of the actio\*_upon payment

into court for the benefit of the surface owner of the real

property the litigation expenses attributable to the mineral

interest or portion thereof as to which the notice is recorded. •

(c) This section does not apply in an action in, which a

mineral interest has been unused within the meaning of

Section 4(b) for a period of 40 or more years next preceding

v •5

1\

!/

i

!4;!

commencement of the action.

'• . ' vif

COMMENT. -' '• b •

. This section applies only where the' mineral owner seeks to.make a late recording in order to obtain dismissal of the action.The section is not intended to require payment of litigationexpenses as" a condition of dismissal where the mineral ownersecures dismissal upon proof that the mineral interest, is notdormant by, virtue of recordation or use of the property withinthe previous 20 years, as prescribed in Section 4 (termination ofdormant mineral interest). Moreover, the remedy provided bythis section is available only if there havs been some recordationor use of the property within the previous 40 years.

j

SECTION 7. EFFECT OF TERMINATION. .

A. court order terminating a mineral interest (, when

recorded,} merges the terminated mineral interest, including'

express and implied appurtenant surface rights and obligations,

with the surface estate in shares proportionate to the ownership

of the surface estate, subject to existing liens for taxes or

assessments. "/

¦«»

i ¦ 4

15

Page 105: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

I j. s

r

If

' COMMENT

In some states it is standard practice for judgments suchas this to be recorded. In other states entry of judgment alonemay suffice to make the judgment part of the land records. )

i t '

- Merger of a terminated mineral interest with the surface issubject not only to existing tax iiens and assessments, but also

. to other outstanding liens on the mineral interest. However, anoutstanding iien oh a mineral interest is itself a mineral interestthat may be subject to termination under this Act. It should be,noted that termination' of a mineral interest under this Act thathas been tax-deeded to the state or other public entity issubject to compliance with relevant requirements for release oftax-deeded property.

¦ • • :! 1

The1 appurtenant surface rights and obligations referred toin Section 7 include the right of entry on the surface and theobligation of support of the surface. However, termination ofthe support obligation of the surface under this Act does notterminate any support obligations owed to adjacent surfaceowners. "

4

It is possible under this section for a surface owner to ;acquire greater mineral interests than the surface owner startedwith. Assume, for example, there are equal co-owners of thesurface; one of whom conveys his or her undivided 50% share ofminerals. Upon termination of the conveyed mineral interestunder this Act, the interest would merge with the surface estatein proportion to the ownership of the surface estate, so thateach owner would acquire one-half of t^he mineral interest. Theend result is that the conveying surface owner would hold anundivided one-fourth of the minerals and the' nonconveying 'surface owner surface owner would hold an undividedthree-fourths of the minerals. This result is proper since thereversion represents a windfall to the surface estate in generaland to the conveying owner in particular, who has previouslyreceived the value of the mineral interest.

• ;

;/

*

;

i

In the example above, assume that the conveyed mineralinterest m not terminated, but instead, the owner of the mineralinterest executes a 30-year mineral lease. If the lease isterminated under this Act after 20 years have run, the interestin the remaining 10 years of the lease would merge with thesurface estate in proportionate shares, at the end of which timeit would expire, leaving the interest of the mineral owner 'unencumbered. " ,

4

9

16

>

(

Page 106: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

\

'>.

\>

!

!

!

SECTION 8. SAVINGS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, this

[Act] applies to all mineral interests, whether created before,

on, or after its effective date. 1« i

(b) An action may not be maintained to terminate a

mineral interest pursuant to this [Act] until [two] years after

the effective date of the [Act]. '

(c) This [Act] does not limit or affect any other

procedure provided by law for clearing an abandoned mineral

interest from title to real property, '

(d) This [Act] does not affect the validity of the

termination of any mineral interest made pursuant to any

predecessor statute on dormant mineral interests. The repeal by

this [Act] of any statute on dormant mineral interests takes

effect [two] years after the effective date of this [Act].

COMMENT

i4 J.

if

'!

j:! •?:f

1¦i

4;

The [two] -year grace period provided by this section is toenable a mineral owner to take steps to record a notice of intenttcTpreserve an interest that would otherwise be subject totermination immediately upon the effective date because of theapplication of the Act to existing mineral interests. Thus, amineral owner may record a notice of intent to preserve aninterest during the [two] -year period even though no action maybe brought during the [two] -year period. Subsection (d) isintended for those states that repeal an existing dormant mineralstatute upon enactment of this Act.

•¦j

SECTION 9. UNIFORMITY OF APPLICATION AND

CONSTRUCTION.

This [Act] shall be applied and construed to effectuate its

general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the v

subject of this [Act] among states enacting it.

17

!

I

Page 107: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=883598.pdf · State, ex rel. A.A.A. Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St. 3d at 152-53. As

f*r

i

;•

SECTION 10. SHORT TITLE.

This [Act] may be cited as the Uniform Dormant Mineralsi

Interests Act.

>

;

SECTION il. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.

If any provision of this [Act] or its application to any person

or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect

any other provision or application of this [Act] that can be

^ given effect without, the invalid provision or application, and to

this end the provisions of this [Act] are severable.

!

i.

SECTION 12. EFFECTIVE DATE.

!This [Act] takes effect

SECTION 13. REPEALS.•y

The following acts and parts Of acts are repealed:

(1)

(2)

(3)

>

*

#>

18

i