Wednesday, April 14, 2021
West v. Bode,
1 the Ohio Supreme Court determined that mineral estates are subject to the statutory double barrel of both the Marketable Title Act (MTA)
2 and the Dormant Mineral Act (DMA),
3 providing surface owners two simultaneous procedures for terminating long-held mineral estates and reunifying the property. In doing so, the court shot down mineral owners’ arguments that the MTA was superseded by the later-enacted DMA. In light of
West, Ohio courts continue to analyze the specific operations of the MTA, with mixed results for mineral owners.
4
The MTA poses a particular problem for mineral owners and lessees because it operates “automatically,” without the notice requirements and opportunity to cure afforded by the DMA.
Last year in
West v. Bode,
1 the Ohio Supreme Court determined that mineral estates are subject to the statutory double barrel of both the Marketable Title Act (MTA)
2 and the Dormant Mineral Act (DMA),
3 providing surface owners two simultaneous procedures for terminating long-held mineral estates and reunifying the property. In doing so, the court shot down mineral owners’ arguments that the MTA was superseded by the later-enacted DMA. In light of
West, Ohio courts continue to analyze the specific operations of the MTA, with mixed results for mineral owners.
4
The MTA poses a particular problem for mineral owners and lessees because it operates “automatically,” without the notice requirements and opportunity to cure afforded by the DMA.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The Appellate Law Practice Group of Roetzel & Andress represented clients in a wide variety of cases in both state and federal courts, appealing adverse trial court rulings and successfully defending lower court victories on appeal. The Appellate Law Group consists of attorneys with knowledge and experience in understanding the intricacies of the appellate process and navigating a case successfully through the appellate courts. The cases below provide a sampling of some of Roetzel’s work and highlight the professional excellence and top-notch skills consistently displayed by the appellate team.
On December 17, the Supreme Court of Ohio held in
Gerrity v. Chervenak that the circumstances of each respective case will control the efforts a surface owner must take before resorting to notice by publication under the Dormant Mineral Act (DMA).
In
Gerrity, Timothy Gerrity sought a judgment quieting title and declaring him the owner of the mineral estate underlying a 108-acre property in Guernsey County. John Chervenak trustee of the Chervenak Family Trust, owner of the surface estate claimed that the mineral estate belonged to the trust because it had been deemed abandoned under the DMA. Mr. Gerrity, conversely, claimed that Mr. Chervenak’s use of the DMA was ineffective because he failed to comply with the Act’s notice requirements. The Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas awarded summary judgment to Mr. Chervenak, and the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.
Wednesday, December 23, 2020
On December 17, the Supreme Court of Ohio held in
Gerrity v. Chervenak that the circumstances of each respective case will control the efforts a surface owner must take before resorting to notice by publication under the Dormant Mineral Act (DMA).
In
Gerrity, Timothy Gerrity sought a judgment quieting title and declaring him the owner of the mineral estate underlying a 108-acre property in Guernsey County. John Chervenak trustee of the Chervenak Family Trust, owner of the surface estate claimed that the mineral estate belonged to the trust because it had been deemed abandoned under the DMA. Mr. Gerrity, conversely, claimed that Mr. Chervenak’s use of the DMA was ineffective because he failed to comply with the Act’s notice requirements. The Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas awarded summary judgment to Mr. Chervenak, and the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.