On November 5, 2015, in a divided yet decisive decision, In Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., et al. v. Kenneth Buell et al., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4551, the Court answered two certified questions from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio: The Court held that a recorded oil and gas lease is a title transaction under Ohio Rev. Code § 5031.56(B)(3)(a), but the expiration of such a lease is not. Thus, the Court answered the first certified question in the affirmative and the second certified question in the negative. In its analysis of the first certified question, the Court held: Under R.C. 5301.47(F), the recorded oil and gas lease constitutes a title transaction because it affects title to the surface and mineral owners’ interests in land. And it is therefore a saving event under R.C. 5031.56(B)(3)(a) because “[t]he mineral interest has been the subject of a title transaction that has been filed or recorded” in the appropriate county recorder’s office. Id. ¶ 66. In the answer to the second certified question, the court states: Id. ¶ 81. In reaching this conclusion, the Court provided a clear signal that, had the lease expiration in question been recorded (rather than unrecorded), the outcome would have been different. See id. ¶¶ 74-75. In the first ODMA case decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio, a unanimous decision was reached on June 18, 2015, in Dodd v. Croskey, 143 Ohio St.3d 293, 2015-Ohio-2362. There, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that, under the 2006 version of the ODMA, the mineral-interest holder’s filing of an affidavit of preservation under R.C. 5301.56(H) was sufficient to prevent abandonment of the mineral interests. The ODMA decisions are important to provide clarity to the players in the oil and gas development in Ohio – both the surface and mineral-interest holders, but also oil and gas lessees. A variety of other issues involving the ODMA will be answered in due course, once the Ohio Supreme Court is able to draft decisions in the other remaining cases, the current statuses of which are outlined below. Oral Arguments have been presented in these cases and are awaiting the court’s decision: The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted these appeals for review, but further briefing and review have been stayed pending decisions in one or more of the above-referenced cases: (Briefing stayed pending a decision in Walker v. Shondrick-Nau and Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C.) (Briefing stayed pending a decision in Walker v. Shondrick-Nau) (Briefing stayed pending a decision in Dodd v. Crosky and Eisenbarth v. Reusser) (Briefing stayed pending a decision in Walker v. Shondrick-Nau) (Briefing stayed pending a decision in Walker v. Shondrick-Nau) (Briefing stayed pending a decision in Walker v. Shondrick-Nau) For further information on the subject matter of this alert, please contact: Michael R. Traven For further information or assistance regarding matters affecting the oil and gas industry, contact any of the following FisherBroyles attorneys: Robert S. Ballentine, LL.M. Randy Burton Christian Goff Kenneth M. Krasny Michael V. Passella Landon Speights [1] Chief Justice O’Connor penned the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Lanzinger, French, and O’Neill. Justices Pfeifer and O’Donnell concurred in part and dissented in part, while Justice Kennedy concurred in the answers to the certified questions and concurred in part.
Hans Michael Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. et al.
Case Number 2014-0804
Oral Argument Presented 5-6-2015
Jon Walker Jr. v. Patricia J. Shondrick-Nau, executrix of the Estate of John R. Noon and Successor Trustee of the John R. Noon Trust
Case Number 2014-0803
Oral Argument Presented 6-23-2015
Leland Eisenbarth, et al. v. Dean Reusser, et al.
Case Number 2014-1767
Oral Argument Presented 11/17/2015
Ronald Dahlgren, et al. v. Brown Farm Properties LLC, et al.
Case Number 2014-1655
Accepted For Review 3/11/2015
Dan Swartz et al. v. Jay Householder, Sr., et al.
Case Number 2014-1208
Accepted For Review 11-19-2014
Virgil Farnsworth, et al. v. James Burkhart, et al.
Case Number 2014-1909
Accepted For Review 4/29/2015
Vernon Tribett, et al. v. Barbara Shepherd, et al.
Case Number 2014-1966
Accepted For Review 4/29/2015
Christopher Wendt et al. v. Judith Dickerson et al.
Case Number 2014-2051
Accepted For Review 5/20/2015
Benjamin F. Taylor, et al. v. Donald L. Crosby, et al.
Case Number 2014-1886
Accepted For Review 4/8/2015
michael.traven@fisherbroyles.legal
614.721.5573
robert.ballentine@fisherbroyles.legal
281.547.8952
randy.burton@fisherbroyles.legal
832.509.2564
christian.goff@fisherbroyles.legal
210.454.2548
kenneth.krasny@fisherbroyles.legal
281.376.8838
michael.passella@fisherbroyles.legal
614.468.1088
landon.speights@fisherbroyles.legal
832.915.2300
Supreme Court of Ohio Decides on Second Dormant Mineral Act Case
[1] the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled in the second of eleven Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (ODMA) cases accepted for review in 2014 and 2015. ODMA litigation began in 2012 and by 2015 the number of cases accepted for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio has peaked at eleven with a myriad of unique and complex certified questions to be answered by the Court.