Legal
Watch Will the Ohio Supreme Court Clear Up the Muddy Waters of the DMA? Authored by: Andrew Good
address the Moores had listed on the 1982 conveyance. [9] After the certified mail elicited no response, notice was given through publication in the Monroe County Beacon, the county in which the subject land was situated. [10] Subsequently in 2015, an Affidavit of Facts Related to Title was recorded in the official records of Monroe County, stating that the Moore Interest owners had been provided proper notice of abandonment. [11] In reliance on the Monroe County official records SWN’s predecessor-in-interest began producing oil and gas on the property in 2017. [12] Finally in 2022, 12 years after the Moore Interest was deemed abandoned, the Appellants filed a five-count complaint against Appellees (SWN Production and the Zollingers), largely claiming that they owned the mineral interest and were not receiving royalties. [13] The trial court, however, held the Zollingers had exercised reasonable diligence in locating and identifying the holders of the Moore Interest, and ultimately granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. [14] The Appellants appealed, claiming two assignments of error, the first of which is decisive to the outcome. The first assignment of error is the Appellants’ claim that the trial court erred in declaring that the Moore Interest was properly abandoned under the DMA. [15] The basis for this assignment of error rests in the Ohio Rev. Code § 5301.56(E), which lays out the procedure for serving notice
Within the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (hereinafter, “DMA”), there is often a question of the diligence a surface owner should employ when seeking the mineral owner to declare the mineral interest abandoned. The oft-cited case of Fonzi v. Brown [1] states that a surface owner is “not required to do the impossible and locate undiscoverable [mineral interest] holders.” However, the Appellants in Moore v. SWN Production Company, LLC, [2] believe that undiscoverable mineral interest holders should be discovered, within reason. The facts of Moore are relatively straightforward. To begin, the subject land was conveyed to George and Theresa Moore in 1979. [3] Subsequently in 1982, the subject land was conveyed to Gary and Theresa Zollinger containing the following reservations: Excepting and Reserving the ¾ of all royalty of oil and gas produced from these premises as reserved by former grantors and also reserving the ½ of all coal underlying these premises as reserved by former grantor. Further Excepting and Reserving to the grantors, George M. Moore and Theresa Moore, husband and wife, all of the oil and gas, all of the coal, and all other minerals and mining and leasing rights not excepted or reserved by prior owners. [4] Based on the aforementioned reservations, it was determined that George and Theresa Moore reserved ¼ of the oil and gas royalty (hereinafter, the “Moore Interest”). [5] The facts further indicate that George Moore died testate in 2002, bequeathing Theresa Moore the Moore Interest. [6] Whereafter Theresa Moore died testate in 2014, bequeathing the Moore Interest to the Appellants. [7] In 2010, the Zollingers entered into an oil and gas lease, with SWN’s predecessor-in-interest, where a title examination was conducted. [8] Upon completing the examination, counsel for the Zollingers sent certified mail of the Zollingers’ intent to declare the Moore Interest abandoned to the last known address of George and Theresa Moore, the same forwarding
1] 2022-Ohio-901. [2] 2024-Ohio-5517. [3] Moore at ¶6. [4] Id. at ¶6-7. [5] Id. at ¶8. [6] Id. [7] Id. [8] Moore at ¶9. [9] Id. at ¶10. [10] Id. [11] Id. at ¶12. [12] Id. [13] Moore at ¶13.
[14] Id. at ¶22. [15] Id. at ¶24.
28
N at i onal A ssociation of D i v i s i on O rder A nalys t s
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker