January 18, 2021

Volume XI, Number 18


January 15, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Ohio Supreme Court Finds No Conflict Between MTA and DMA in Reuniting Mineral Interests

On December 2, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its opinion in West v. Bode, 2020-Ohio-5473, and determined that either the Marketable Title Act (“MTA”) or the Dormant Mineral Act (“DMA”) may be used to reunite a severed mineral interest with the surface property subject to that interest.

In West v. Bode, surface owners Wayne and Rusty West sought a judgment declaring that the MTA had extinguished a severed oil and gas royalty interest relating to their property.  Three mineral interest holders intervened and requested a judgment declaring that they owned a fraction of the oil and gas royalty interest.  The Monroe County Court of Common Pleas awarded summary judgment to the mineral interest holders because, in its view, the DMA and the MTA irreconcilably conflicted with one another and, under those circumstances, the more specific DMA superseded the MTA in the mineral interest context.  The Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the MTA and the DMA were “co-extensive alternatives.”  In its holding, the Seventh District Court of Appeals stated that the applicability of the MTA or DMA in a particular case, “depends on the time passed and the nature of the items existing in the pertinent records ... If the claim is extinguishment under the MTA, then the 40-year provision and the test applicable thereto apply; if the claim is abandonment under the DMA, those statutory procedures and 20-year test of R.C. 5301.56 apply.”  As such, the Seventh District Court of Appeals did not view the MTA and DMA as irreconcilable and mutually exclusive of each other.  Thus, the Supreme Court of Ohio was asked to decide whether both the MTA and DMA apply to severed mineral interests, or whether the statutes are irreconcilable and therefore the specific statute of the DMA supersedes and controls over the general MTA. 

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the decision of the Seventh District Court of Appeals and held that there is no irreconcilable conflict between the general provisions of the MTA as applied to severed mineral interests, and the DMA and, as such, both acts retain effect.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied upon the same rule as the Seventh District Court of Appeals that if a general provision (the MTA) conflicts with a special provision (the DMA), they shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both.  Otherwise, if the conflict between the provisions is irreconcilable, the special provision prevails as an exception to the general provision.  While the Court noted that the MTA and the DMA were certainly different—observing that the MTA has a longer lookback period and is self-executing and that the DMA has different saving events and notice requirements—it held that those differences were reasonable and reconcilable.  The Court further observed that they shared a central purpose of “simplifying and facilitating land title transactions by allowing persons to rely on a record chain of title” and that a mineral interest holder could comply with both statutory schemes to avoid losing any mineral interest.  The Court stated that it was reasonable to believe that the legislature intended for the DMA to provide surface owners an additional mechanism to accomplish reunification of dormant mineral interests with the surface estate in order to promote the use of natural resources when those interests could not be extinguished under the MTA. 

Additionally, the Court cited its decision in Blackstone v. Moore, 2018-Ohio-4959, explaining that, in that decision, it “expressly affirmed” a judgment preserving mineral interest under the MTA.

Lastly, it is important to note that the Court declined to consider whether owners of severed mineral interests are entitled to due process of law before the owner can be deprived of that interest.  As the issue of due process was not raised by appellants in the trial court or court of appeals, the Court did not render any opinion on the merit of such argument. 

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 338



About this Author

Kevin West, Energy Attorney, Steptoe Johnson Law Firm

For over 25 years, Kevin West's practice has been focused on the energy industry, both as an outside and in-house attorney.  His practice includes complex litigation, asset and stock transactions, lease transactions, and land and legal due diligence for acquisitions.  He has managed the governmental affairs process and drafted legislation regarding natural gas operations.  He has also defended clients charged with violations of federal criminal laws.  Mr. West is the Managing Member of the Columbus, Ohio office.

(614) 458-9889
Dallas Kratzer Litigation Attorney Steptoe Johnson Ohio
Of Counsel

Dallas Kratzer cut his teeth in the courts, working for five years in the federal courts, including the Fourth and Sixth Circuits of the United States Courts of Appeals.  An avid lacrosse player, Dallas is as competitive on the field as in the courtroom and knows how important it is to understand and predict how  his opponent will behave.  As a law clerk, Dallas gained valuable insight into the “inside baseball” of the court system, as well as the most efficient and effective way to present a position and make a convincing argument.  Clients appreciate that Dallas can...

(614) 458-9827
Andreah S. Frenn Oil Industry Lawyer Steptoe Johnson Law Firm

Andreah Frenn’s work is foundational to the success of law firm clients in the oil and natural gas and coal industries.  Andreah is building an arsenal of experience that includes abstracting for oil and gas title opinions, preparing easements for oil and gas clients, and drafting title opinions for drilling operations to commence. 

(304) 230-2351