Does anyone know if there is any class action suit in Ohio or at Federal level for mineral rights owners that lost their mineral rights to surface owners? Due to old laws in Ohio, if mineral rights owners do nothing for 20 year period, the mineral rights revert to the surface owner - even though the surface owners also have done nothing for 20 years.... So surface owners do absolutely nothing during the same period (i.e. don't try to get mineral rights), yet they get a windfall. In a recent case, mineral rights were lost even though the mineral rights owner had a lease because the leasing company never drilled. Just doesn't seem right to me. In Texas, you never lose your mineral rights regardless period!
Sounds like you simply disagree with the laws of Ohio. Is there anything in particular that makes you think a lawsuit would get anywhere?
At least in Ohio you had 20 years before the minerals became dormant. In Louisiana, regardless of any action on the part of the mineral interest owner, if there is no production for 10 years, the minerals revert to the surface owner. Kansas and North Dakota also have dormant mineral laws.
It would be helpful to have on this site a list of all dormant mineral states and perhaps sample filings so mineral interest owners could save they're non-producing minerals.
Ohio's Dormant Minerals Act (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5301.56) deems severed mineral interests abandoned and rejoined with the surface estate if the mineral interests have not been subjected to a savings event for a period of 20 years. "Savings events" include title transactions with respect to the mineral interests, actual production from the mineral interests or lands pooled or unitized with those interests, the usage of the mineral interests for underground storage, the issuance of a drilling permit to the holder of the mineral interests, the creation of a separate tax listing for the mineral interests, and the filing of a claim by the holder of the mineral interests to preserve those interests.
The Ohio Dormant Minerals Act was enacted in 1989 and significantly amended in 2006. The original statute included no requirement that a mineral owner be notified of a claim of abandonment or that a surface owner do anything to perfect the abandonment. The amended statute added new requirements that the surface owner serve on the mineral rights owner by certified mail a notice of their intent to declare the mineral interest abandoned, or publish a notice if service cannot be completed, and then file an affidavit within 60 days reciting "the facts constituting the abandonment." The amendment also added a whole new procedure for the mineral owner to contest abandonment by filing, after the surface owner's notice, either a claim to preserve their interest or an affidavit identifying a savings event in the 20 years before the surface owner's notice. If the mineral owner fails to do either of these things, the surface owner must then cause the county recorder to memorialize the record with a statement that the mineral interest has been abandoned.
Hope this helps clarify the situation. I would recommend that you seek legal counsel in order to take further action.
Best of luck.
-James T. Snelson
Thanks James for the details on Ohio's Dormant Minerals Act. In the situation I am describing, the surface owner was trying to follow the amended 2006 laws by publishing a notice in the newspaper. The surface right owner actually knew who owned the mineral rights, but chose to publish a notice in the newspaper which was in a different city (probably in hopes the mineral right owner would not see it). The mineral rights owners responded back to the surface owner in a certified letter stating that the mineral rights were not abandoned, preserved their mineral rights, and started paying taxes on them. The surface owner continued to publish notices in the newspaper even though he had received a certified letter and the mineral rights owner's lawyer even contact the surface owner's lawyer to inform him. However it went to court and the judge ruled based on the 1989 law, not the 2006 law. If the judge had ruled based on the 2006 law, the surface owner did not follow all the required procedures, so the mineral rights would have stayed with the mineral rights owner.
So is anyone aware of any similar lawsuits that have been based on the new law instead of the 1989 law to perhaps set a precedent? Furthermore, it was my understanding that the 1989 Ohio law was not publicized and may be unconstitutional. Anyone know if there is any activity around this issue? Thanks,
It sounds like this case was decided a few years ago. I don't know Ohio law, but the time period to appeal may have passed. I would have thought the mineral owner's lawyer would have suggested multiple options for the owner after the judge's decision. I could go on posting more, but I would have to make many assumptions and speculate about the facts and I don't want to do that without knowing for sure.
Diane,
I am unaware of any similar lawsuits, but I am certain that an Ohio based attorney would be, or at least they should be. I am unsure of why the Judge would make a ruling based on an outdated version of an amended act in the first place, and seems very odd to me, but again, an Ohio based professional would be able to give more concise advice as to what would be achievable in court at this point.
As far as the 1989 Ohio law not being publicized and possibly being unconstitutional, many other states have similar or exact laws like this one, and unfortunately, they usually aren't publicly scrutinized until after they are passed and it is too late. I am unfamiliar with how the act was introduced or the circumstances that lead to it being passed, but I can assume that since it was indeed passed there had to at least be some level of public knowledge and constitutionality to it, or it would likely have otherwise already been overturned by now (being 7 years later) - so I would not make that your case.
It is very unfortunate when things like this happen, however, and I never like to hear of people losing their interest on an account of being misinformed or unaware of laws such as these until it is too late, and I think it is an absolute travesty that there isn't more promotion of awareness concerning the issues that effect land and mineral owners alike. I think that is one of the really great things about this forum: the spreading of knowledge and information. It is our duty as citizens of a democracy to stay active, participate, and familiarize ourselves with the voting process and our local laws, and this site is a great way to stay informed.
Anyway, I wish you the best of luck. I can point you in the direction of a few resources that might help you out, if you would like, but I really do recommend that you seek out a professional in the area. I know I have to sound like a broken record at this point, but if it's worth the fight to you, then it's worth the time and money...plus, many offer free consultations so you would at least know your options. Just a thought.
Diane Khosravi said:
Thanks James for the details on Ohio's Dormant Minerals Act. In the situation I am describing, the surface owner was trying to follow the amended 2006 laws by publishing a notice in the newspaper. The surface right owner actually knew who owned the mineral rights, but chose to publish a notice in the newspaper which was in a different city (probably in hopes the mineral right owner would not see it). The mineral rights owners responded back to the surface owner in a certified letter stating that the mineral rights were not abandoned, preserved their mineral rights, and started paying taxes on them. The surface owner continued to publish notices in the newspaper even though he had received a certified letter and the mineral rights owner's lawyer even contact the surface owner's lawyer to inform him. However it went to court and the judge ruled based on the 1989 law, not the 2006 law. If the judge had ruled based on the 2006 law, the surface owner did not follow all the required procedures, so the mineral rights would have stayed with the mineral rights owner.
So is anyone aware of any similar lawsuits that have been based on the new law instead of the 1989 law to perhaps set a precedent? Furthermore, it was my understanding that the 1989 Ohio law was not publicized and may be unconstitutional. Anyone know if there is any activity around this issue? Thanks,
Diane-
Is the case you were referring to the Walker v. Moon trial that was settled back in March of this year?
This case was just decided earlier this month July 2013. The judge based his decision on 1989 law basically saying that 20 "dormant" years had passed before the law was changed, so the mineral rights would have already reverted back to the surface owner - even though the surface owner took no action after the 20 "dormant" years until recently. I keep saying "dormant" because during the "dormant" period the mineral rights owner (now deceased) did have a lease and received small payments on the lease, but no drilling was ever done. She left her mineral rights to her heirs which were involved in the court action. If she were alive today, she would be disappointed on the ruling. Again, from what I have been told by my relatives involved, had the judge ruled based on the new law, the surface owner did not follow proper procedure and the mineral right owners would have retained their mineral rights. They already have a lawyer, but don't know if it is worth appealing because if all cases are being ruled in favor of the surface owner based on the old law, then it is a waste of money. It was my understanding you only have 30 days to appeal. I have no interest in these particular mineral rights, but hoping I might get advice to pass along....
Hi Diane. I just saw your post for the first time yesterday. The Seventh District Court of Appeals in Ohio (which includes many of the hotbed counties) recently decided an appeal based on the 2006 version of the statute, even though the mineral rights at issue would have otherwise automatically expired under the 1989 version. Several county courts within the Seventh District's jurisdiction have since applied the 2006 version, holding that a surface owner must follow the 2006 version's procedural steps to extinguish the mineral interest, and that the 1989 version is no longer applicable.
Also, note, the DMA has been amended again, effective Jan. 30, 2014, to require the surface owner to take an additional step before a mineral interest will be deemed abandoned and vested in the surface owner. --Mike