CHRISTMAN WERE NOT NAMED IN SAID SUIT AND THERE WAS NO IDENTITY OF PARTIES NOR WERE THEY IN PRIVITY WITH THE THREE NAMED DEFENDANTS, SINCE THEIR PREDECSSOR IN TITLE, NOVA A. CHRISTMAN, HAVING OBTAINED HIS INTEREST FOR 1/8 OR ALL THE ROYALTY UNDER THE SUBJECT PREMISES FROM THE MONROE COUNTY AUDITOR IN A DEED IN 1944 WHICH DEED WAS THE RESULT OF A TAX FORFEITURE SALE AND THEREFORE, HIS PREDECESSOR IN TITLE WAS THE STATE OF OHIO AND, THEREFORE, NO PRIVITY EXISTED WITH THE NAMED DEFENDANTS- APPELLANTS.
{¶30} Appellants' second assignment of error states:
THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO NOTICE TO THESE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND THAT THE NOTICE TO THE THREE SCARBOROUGH HEIRS, AS SHOWN IN EXHIBITS HERETO, WERE ONLY SERVED ON WATSON D. SCARBOROUGH, BENTLEY SCARBOROUGH AND EDITH B. SCARBOROUGH, THEIR UNKNOWN HEIRS, DEVISEES AND LEGATESS, BY PUBLICATION. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS IN THE COMPLAINT, PUBLICATION OF NOTICE, NOR IN THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ENTRY. THEREFORE SAID JUDGMENT IS NOT BINDING FOR LACK OF PRIVITY AND SERVICE ON THESE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
{¶31} Appellants' fifth assignment of error states:
Case No. 18 MO 0005
THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE INTEREST OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS WAS ABANDONED OR EXTINGUISHED PURSUANT TO THE 1989 OHIO DORMANT MINERAL ACT (O.R.C. §5301.56) IN THAT THE UNDERLYING QUIET TITLE ACTION WAS DEFECTIVE IN THAT IT GAVE NO NOTICE TO THESE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS IN THAT IT DID NOT NAME THEM AS DEFENDANTS NOR DID IT NAME THE SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS OF THE SCARBOROUGH HEIRS AS DEFENDANTS AND THAT AT THIS TIME, THE SCARBOROUGH HEIRS DID NOT OWN ANY INTEREST IN SAID PROPERTY DUE TO THE AUDITOR'S DEED TO NOVA A. CHRISTMAN IN 1944; THEREFORE, SAID QUIET TITLE ACTION WAS A NULLITY.
{¶32} Appellants' sixth assignment of error states:
THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN STATING THAT THE INTEREST CLAIMED BY DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS WAS ONLY THE INTEREST OF SUCCESSORS OF BENTLEY SCARBOROUGH AND/OR WATSON D. SCARBOROUGH BY THE AUDITOR'S DEED WHEN IN FACT THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS CLAIMED NOT ONLY THAT INTEREST BUT THE INTEREST OF ALL THE SCARBOROUGH HEIRS WHOSE INTERESTS WERE EXTINGUISHED BY THE TAX FORFEITURE SALE. THUS THE SAME COULD NOT BE BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DUE TO THERE NOT BEING ANY PRIVITY BETWEEN THESE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND THE SCARBOROUGH HEIRS. THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS' ROOT OF TITLE BEING FROM THE STATE OF OHIO AND NOT THE SCARBOROUGH HEIRS.
{¶33} Appellants' seventh assignment of error states:
THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN FINDING THERE WAS PRIVITY BETWEEN THE NAMED SCARBOROUGH DEFENDANTS WHO WERE
Case No. 18 MO 0005
SERVED BY PUBLICATION WHO HAD NO INTEREST IN SAID PREMISES AND WERE NOT IN PRIVITY WITH THESE DEFENDANTS- APPELLANTS. THEREFORE, SAID JUDGMENT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND CONTRARY TO LAW.
{¶34} Appellants' eighth assignment of error states:
THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN FINDING PRIVITY BY STATING THAT IN THE PRIOR CASE IN 2000, THAT THE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS WERE NAMED WHEN, IN FACT, THE COMPLETE RECORD AS SHOWN