RECENT COURT DECISIONS REGARDING OIL AND GAS LEASES AND THE OHIO DORMANT MINERAL ACT
Posted On:
|
Author:
|
|
In our June 25, 2015 blog we discussed the important decision that had just been rendered by the Ohio Supreme Court interpreting R.C. § 5301.56, the Dormant Mineral Act (“DMA”). In Dodd v. Croskey, 2015-Ohio-2362, the Court held that if a claim to preserve is filed by the mineral interest holder in the 20 years preceding, or within 60 days after, the surface owner’s service of a notice of intent to cause abandonment, this filing is sufficient to prevent the mineral interest from being deemed abandoned under the DMA. We also noted that the Court had accepted for review a number of additional cases involving the DMA. Based on the Court’s decision in Dodd, we predicted that the Court would favor preservation of the rights of severed mineral interest holders and oil and gas lessees.
Since our last blog, the Ohio Supreme Court has decided three more DMA cases and accepted several additional DMA cases for review. On November 5, 2015, the Court issued its decision in Chesapeake Exploration LLC v. Kenneth Buell, 2015-Ohio-4551. The Court held that recording an oil and gas lease is a title transaction that prevents the severed mineral rights from being deemed abandoned under the DMA. The Court also held that the unrecorded expiration of an oil and gas lease did not qualify as a title transaction, and so did not preserve the rights of a severed mineral interest holder.
On January 21, 2016, the Supreme Court decided two consolidated cases, Hupp v. Beck Energy (now known as Hustack v. Beck Energy) and State ex rel. Claugus Family Farm v. Seventh District Court of Appeals, 2016-Ohio-178. Both cases involved leases entered into with Beck Energy. Beck Energy had utilized a similar lease in approximately 700 oil and gas leases in Monroe County, one of the more active counties for shale drilling and, in the past, for shallow well drilling. The plaintiff landowners were attempting to terminate Beck Energy’s leases, arguing that the leases were void as perpetual leases. The landowners also contended that the leases contained implied covenants to develop the land for drilling and because Beck Energy had not started drilling on most of the leased properties, these leases had lapsed. The Court upheld the leases, finding that they clearly delineated a ten year primary term during which development had to occur to avoid expiration. Perhaps more importantly for the future of lease litigation, the Court held that the delay rental clause of the lease only applies during the primary term of the lease, which is ordinarily a term of months or years. The Court stated that the secondary term cannot be extended by paying delay rentals, which would be equivalent to shut-in rentals had a well been drilled.
The Court also found that there was no implied covenant to reasonably develop the land since the leases required development during the ten year primary term and specifically disclaimed all implied covenants. The Court ignored the Monroe County trial court’s determination that language in the lease providing for litigation of express and implied covenants negated the disclaimer of implied covenants.
Interestingly, the Court denied the argument of Beck Energy that the leases should be tolled during the pendency of the Ohio Supreme Court litigation. The Court noted that they found the leases to be valid, but did not explain why tolling would not be appropriate. Presumably the Court expected that Beck Energy, after it received a favorable decision from the Court of Appeals, would have actively developed some of the leases while the case was pending in the Supreme Court.
Decisions on the DMA by the Supreme Court are pending in several other cases. Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration LLC and Walker v. Shondrick-Nau were argued in May and June, 2015, respectively. Eight other cases have been stayed pending the results in Corban and Walker. A few cases were stayed pending a decision in Eisenbarth v. Reusser, argued in November, 2015. That case should decide if there is a rolling or fixed 20 year look back period under the 1989 DMA and whether the act is prospective in nature.
The Eisenbarth, Corban and Walker cases should resolve most of the remaining DMA issues that are litigated in Ohio. In Corban the Court should determine whether the 2006 version or the 1989 version of the DMA applies to claims that are asserted after 2006, but that rely on the 1989 version in asserting that severed mineral rights automatically revested in the surface owner prior to the 2006 amendments without any further action being taken by the surface owner. If the 1989 DMA still applies, Eisenbarth will determine the critical dates to analyze if the severed interest was deemed abandoned. Corban will also decide whether the payment of a delay rental during the primary term of an oil and gas lease is a title transaction extending a severed mineral interest holder’s rights under the DMA.
In Walker, there are six propositions of law, the most important of which is whether the 2006 version of the DMA is the only law to be applied after its June 30, 2006 effective date, or whether the parties first must determine whether the 1989 version or the 2006 version of the DMA applies after June 30, 2006, in determining if a legal abandonment took place. Likewise, the Court has been asked to determine if a property owner must take some affirmative action to merge the mineral rights with the surface interest prior to the adoption of the 2006 DMA and if not, whether the 2006 DMA is the only law to apply.
The all-important look back question should also be decided in Walker. If the 1989 DMA remains applicable after adoption of the 2006 DMA, when is the 20 year look back period calculated on the date a lawsuit is filed or is there a one-time fixed look back three years after the 1989 version went into effect? This is different than the Eisenbarth assignment of error.
Three other points have been raised, one of which may not be decided but will be discussed in more detail here when the Walker decision is rendered by the Supreme Court.
On a side note, in September 2015 the Ohio Oil and Gas Commission issued an order addressing unitization under R.C. § 1509.28. The Commission upheld a 200% interest charge on the reluctant landowner regarding capital expenditures, and did not grant a signing bonus made available to other parties in the pool. This decision is not favorable to landowners. There may be more on this issue as future orders are litigated in the Tenth District.
Recent Articles
Categories
- Arbitration
- Best Lawyers in America
- Business Law
- Business Litigation
- Chardon Attorneys
- Chardon Lawyers
- Charity
- Class Action Lawsuits
- Cleveland Attorneys
- Cleveland Lawyers
- Construction Law
- Contract Law
- Court Cases
- Criminal Law
- Defense Attorneys
- Defense Verdicts
- Divorce Attorney
- Divorce Law
- Divorce Lawyers
- Divorce Process
- Employer Liability
- Employment Lawyers
- Estate Planning
- Family Law
- Family Law Attorney
- FMLA Eligibility
- Insurance Coverage
- Insurance Law
- Lawsuits
- Legal Advice
- Mineral Rights Lawyer
- News
- Ohio Oil and Gas
- Ohio Super Lawyers
- Oil & Gas Law
- Oil & Gas Update
- Oil and Gas Attorneys
- Personal Injury
- Personal Injury Lawyers
- Practice News
- Real Estate Lawyers
- Trial Lawyers
- Workers Compensation
- Zoning Lawyers
Archives
- January 2021
- December 2020
- September 2020
- May 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- May 2019
- June 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- December 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- March 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- February 2014
- November 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- May 2011
- February 2011
- December 2010
- October 2009
- June 2009
- May 2006