[Cite as Pfalzgraf v. Miley, 2018-Ohio-4392.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

MONROE COUNTY

GEORGE AND MARJORIE PFALZGRAF, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

JEFF MILEY, DBA MILEY GAS COMPANY, ET AL., 

Defendants-Appellants.

 

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY 

Case Nos. 16 MO 0005, 16 MO 0006. 

 

Motion to Certify a Conflict 

BEFORE: 

Gene Donofrio, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges. 

JUDGMENT: 

Denied 

Atty. Ethan Vessels, Fields, Dehmlow & Vessels, 309 Second Street, Marietta, Ohio 

45750, for Plaintiffs-Appellees, and 

Atty. William J. Taylor, Atty. Scott D. Eickelberger, Atty. David J. Tarbert, Atty. Ryan H. 

Linn, Kincaid, Taylor & Geyer, 50 North Fourth Street, P.O. Box 1030, Zanesville, Ohio 

43702, and Atty. J. Kevin West, Atty. Melanie Norris, Atty. Lyle Brown, Steptoe & 

Johnson, PLLC, 41 South High Street, Suite 2200, Columbus, Ohio 43215, for 

Defendants-Appellants. 

 Dated: 

 October 29, 2018 
 – 2 – 

Case Nos. 16 MO 0005, 16 MO 0006

 

PER CURIAM. 

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellee, George Pfalzgraf, has filed two motions both asking this 

court to certify a conflict to the Ohio Supreme Court. The first motion alleges a conflict 

between this Court’s judgment in Pfalzgraf v. Miley, 7th Dist. No. 16 MO 0005, 2018-

Ohio-2828, and the Third District’s judgment in Mulcahy v. Runyon, 3d Dist. No. 8-81-

18, 1983 WL 7244 (Apr. 20, 1983). The second motion alleges a conflict between this 

Court’s judgment in Pfalzgraf, supra, and Siley v. Remmele, 4th Dist. No. 86 CA 6, 1987 

WL 7585 (Mar. 6, 1987). 

{¶2} Appellee asks that we certify the two following questions: 

In an action in which a lessor sues for a declaration that that [sic.] 

an oil and gas lease has terminated of [sic.] for lack of production in 

paying quantities, who bears the burden of proof, the lessor or the lessee? 

In an action to declare that an oil and gas lease has terminated 

under its own terms, can the payment of a royalty be considered as any 

evidence that the well in question produced ‘in paying quantities’? 

{¶3} App.R. 25 governs motions to certify conflicts. Pursuant to App.R. 25(A), 

a motion to certify a conflict 

shall be made in writing no later than ten days after the clerk has both 

mailed to the parties the judgment or order of the court that creates a 

conflict with a judgment or order of another court of appeals and made 

note on the docket of the mailing, as required by App.R. 30(A). 

{¶4} We entered our judgment in this case on July 12, 2018. The clerk mailed 

copies of the judgment that same day. The clerk also made a note of mailing the 

judgment that day. 

{¶5} Thus, appellee had ten days after July 12, 2018 to file his motions to 

certify a conflict. Because the tenth day (July 22, 2018) was a Sunday, appellee had 
 – 3 – 

Case Nos. 16 MO 0005, 16 MO 0006

until July 23, 2018 to file his motions to certify. Appellee did not file his motions to 

certify until September 11, 2018, well past the ten-day time limit. Thus, the motions are 

clearly untimely. 

{¶6} Because appellee’s motions are untimely, the motions to certify a conflict 

are hereby denied. 

JUDGE GENE DONOFRIO, Concurs 

JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE, Concurs 

JEDGE CAROL ANN ROBB, Concurs 

 

NOTICE TO COUNSEL 

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.