[Cite as Cardinal Minerals, L.L.C. v. Miller, 2024-Ohio-2560.]

Atty. Sara E. Fanning, Atty. Emily K. Anglewicz, and Atty. David J. Wigham, Roetzel & 

Andress, LPA, for Plaintiff-Appellant Cardinal Minerals, LLC and 

Atty. Matthew W. Onest and Atty. Kyle W. Rea, Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty, 

Co., L.P.A., for Defendants-Appellees Menno D. Miller, Sarah B. Miller, Joseph M. Miller, 

Edna J. Miller, Barbara M. Miller, Jacob J. Byler, Rhoda M. Miller, and Alan D. Miller and

Atty. Paul N. Garinger and Atty. Kristopher J. Armstrong, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, and 

Atty. Craig E. Sweeney, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., for Defendant-Appellee SWN 

Production Company, LLC.

Dated: July 2, 2024

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

MONROE COUNTY

CARDINAL MINERALS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MENNO D. MILLER ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Case No. 23 MO 0018

Application for Reconsideration

BEFORE:

Katelyn Dickey, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.

JUDGMENT:

Denied.
– 2 –

Case No. 23 MO 0018

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} On June 14, 2024, Appellant, Cardinal Minerals, LLC, filed an application 

requesting that this court reconsider our decision in Cardinal Minerals, LLC v. Miller, 

2024-Ohio-2133 (7th Dist.), in which we affirmed the judgment of the Monroe County 

Court of Common Pleas granting Appellees’, SWN Production Company, LLC (“SWN”) 

and Menno D. Miller, Sarah B. Miller, Joseph M. Miller, Edna J. Miller, Barbara M. Miller, 

Jacob J. Byler, Rhoda M. Miller, and Alan D. Miller (the “Millers”), motions for summary 

judgment and overruling Appellant’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment because 

Appellant lacks standing in this oil and gas case. Appellant contends this court’s decision 

affirming the trial court’s judgment was in error and that we should, therefore, reconsider 

the opinion pursuant to App.R. 26(A). SWN and the Millers filed separate responses on 

June 24, 2024. Appellant filed a reply on July 1, 2024.

App.R. 26, which provides for the filing of an application for reconsideration 

in this court, includes no guidelines to be used in the determination of 

whether a decision is to be reconsidered and changed. Matthews v.

Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140, 143, 450 N.E.2d 278 (10th Dist.1981). The 

test generally applied is whether the motion for reconsideration calls to the 

attention of the court an obvious error in its decision or raises an issue for 

our consideration that was either not at all or was not fully considered by us 

when it should have been. Id. An application for reconsideration is not 

designed for use in instances where a party simply disagrees with the 

conclusions reached and the logic used by an appellate court. State v.

Owens, 112 Ohio App.3d 334, 336, 678 N.E.2d 956 (11th Dist.1996). 

Rather, App.R. 26 provides a mechanism by which a party may prevent 

miscarriages of justice that could arise when an appellate court makes an 

obvious error or renders an unsupportable decision under the law. Id.

D.G. v. M.G.G., 2019-Ohio-1190, ¶ 2 (7th Dist.).

{¶2} In its application, Appellant contends this court’s determination that 

Appellant lacks standing required a dismissal of the action without prejudice. Appellant 
– 3 –

Case No. 23 MO 0018

believes this court repeated the trial court’s error by improperly addressing the merits of 

Appellees’ champerty and maintenance defenses and erroneously affirming the trial 

court’s judgment. In their responses, SWN and the Millers assert a lack of standing simply 

does not preclude a ruling on the merits of the underlying claims as Appellant suggests 

and that this court properly affirmed the trial court’s judgment. 

{¶3} Contrary to Appellant’s position, the record establishes this court did not 

make any obvious errors or render a decision that is not supported by the law. Although 

the trial court held Appellant lacks standing to pursue its claims, this does not, however,

preclude the court from also finding on the merits of the underlying claims. Courts 

routinely make alternative decisions on the merits while simultaneously holding that a 

plaintiff lacks standing to sue. See Slodov v. City of Mentor, 2019-Ohio-1052, ¶ 10 (11th 

Dist.), citing State ex rel. Coles v. Granville, 2007-Ohio-6057, ¶ 51 (“in general, the 

dismissal of an action because a party lacks standing is not a dismissal on the merits”); 

U.S. Bank National Association v. Robinson, 2020-Ohio-32, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.) (“considering 

the merits despite [the appellants’] lack of standing, the trial court’s decision finding that 

[the appellee] proved it was the assignee of the mortgage was not against the manifest 

weight of the evidence”). Based on the facts presented, the trial court committed no error 

and this court properly addressed the merits of Appellees’ champerty and maintenance 

defenses and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Cardinal Minerals, 2024-Ohio-2133, at 

¶ 21-43 (7th Dist.). 

{¶4} Upon consideration of the App.R. 26(A) application filed in the present 

matter, it is apparent that Appellant has not demonstrated any obvious errors or raised 

any issues that were not adequately addressed in our previous opinion. This court is not 

persuaded that we erred as a matter of law.

{¶5} An application for reconsideration is not designed to be used in situations 

wherein a party simply disagrees with the logic employed or the conclusions reached by 

an appellate court. Owens, 112 Ohio App.3d at 336. App.R. 26(A) is meant to provide a 

mechanism by which a party may prevent a miscarriage of justice that could arise when 

an appellate court makes an obvious error or renders a decision that is not supported by 

the law. Id. Appellant has made no such demonstration.
– 4 –

Case No. 23 MO 0018

{¶6} For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s application for reconsideration is 

hereby denied.

JUDGE KATELYN DICKEY

JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE

JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.