Reed v. Ricer

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Reed v. Ricer, 2018-Ohio-861.] STATE OF OHIO, MONROE COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT WILLIAM REED II, et al. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES VS. JENNIFER L. RICER, et al. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 15 MO 0009 OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Ohio Case No. CVH 2014-015 JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded. APPEARANCES: For Plaintiffs-Appellees: Atty. Daniel P. Corcoran Atty. Kristopher O. Justice Theisen Brock, LPA 424 Second Street Marietta, Ohio 45750 For Defendants-Appellants: Atty. John R Estadt Atty. Kyle W. Bickford Hanlon, Estadt, McCormick & Schramm Co., LPA 46457 National Road West St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950 JUDGES: Hon. Cheryl L. Waite Hon. Gene Donofrio Hon. Carol Ann Robb Dated: March 5, 2018 [Cite as Reed v. Ricer, 2018-Ohio-861.] WAITE, J. {¶1} Appellants, Jennifer L. Ricer, et al. appeal the trial court's decision to apply the 1989 version of the Dormant Mineral Act (“DMA”) to their dispute over mineral rights and grant summary judgment in favor of Appellees, William Reed, II, et al. Appellees agree, and the parties jointly argue that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees based on the 1989 DMA. Pursuant to Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., 149 Ohio St.3d 512, 2016-Ohio-5796, 76 N.E.3d 1089, the decision of the trial court is reversed and remanded for application of the 2006 DMA. Facts and Procedural History {¶2} This appeal concerns the ownership of mineral rights beneath 57.33 acres of land located in Sunsbury Township, Monroe County. On September 29, 1934, Vernon Jeffers, Sara Jeffers, Letty Raddle, and Henry Raddle conveyed the surface rights to Lloyd Powell. The deed contained the following reservation: “The Grantors except and reserve for themselves their heirs and assigns, the undivided one-half of the oil and gas in and underlying the above described tracts of land.” (9/29/1934 Deed.) In 1984, Appellees obtained the surface rights to the property. {¶3} On May 3, 2012, Appellees published notice of intent to declare the mineral interests abandoned. On May 9, 2012 and June 29, 2012, Appellees recorded an affidavit of abandonment. On June 27, 2012, Appellant Jennifer Ricer filed a claim of preservation on behalf of herself and the Jeffers and Raddle heirs. {¶4} On January 10, 2014, Appellees filed a complaint against Appellants, who are heirs of the Jeffers and Powells. The complaint asserted that under either -2the 1989 version of the DMA or the 2006 version, title in the severed mineral interest vested in Appellees. On December 8, 2014, Appellees filed a motion for partial summary judgment on their claim to quiet title under the 1989 version of the DMA. Appellants filed an answer but did not file a competing motion for summary judgment. On March 18, 2015, the trial court granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to the 1989 version of the DMA. This timely appeal followed. {¶5} On May 17, 2017, the parties filed a proposed agreed order reversing and remanding the case to the trial court. On May 30, 2017, we denied the proposed order, however, we granted the parties an extension to file briefs citing and discussing the legal basis for such an order. Appellants filed a brief relying on Corban, supra, and seeking reversal and remand. Appellees filed a brief agreeing with Appellants. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPLYING THE 1989 VERSION OF THE OHIO DORMANT MINERAL ACT (O.R.C. 5301.56) TO THE APPELLEES DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND QUIET TITLE CLAIMS. {¶6} The parties jointly argue that the decision of the trial court should be reversed and remanded to allow the trial court to consider the 2006 version of the DMA, pursuant to Corban, supra. {¶7} The parties are correct. The Ohio Supreme Court held: -3[A]s of June 30, 2006, any surface holder seeking to claim dormant mineral rights and merge them with the surface estate is required to follow the statutory notice and recording procedures enacted in 2006 by H.B. 288. These procedures govern the manner by which mineral rights are deemed abandoned and vested in the surface holder and apply equally to claims that the mineral interests were abandoned prior to June 30, 2006. Stalder v. Bucher, 7th Dist. No. 14 MO 0010, 2017-Ohio-725, ¶ 10, quoting Corban, supra, at ¶ 31. The Supreme Court also held that the provisions set out in the 1989 DMA were not self-executing and did not serve to automatically transfer ownership rights of dormant minerals by operation of law. Stalder at ¶ 10, citing Corban at ¶ 28. {¶8} Appellants filed their claim on January 10, 2014. Pursuant to Corban, as the claim was filed after June 30, 2006, the 2006 DMA controls, here. Thus, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees on the basis of the 1989 DMA. Conclusion {¶9} The parties jointly argue that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees based on the 1989 DMA. Pursuant to Corban, supra, the parties are correct. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded for application of the 2006 DMA. Donofrio, J., concurs. Robb, P.J., concurs. -4-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.