Opinion ID: 6221744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: conclusion

Text: {¶ 32} Prior to March 25, 1925, when a conveyance created new property rights benefiting the grantor in the transaction, it contained a reservation and words of inheritance were required to make those new rights inheritable. In contrast, when the transaction withheld preexisting property rights from the conveyance, those 12 January Term, 2022 words were an exception to the conveyance and words of inheritance were not required to retain more than a life estate in the excepted property interest. {¶ 33} In this case, the deeds that W.T. Fleahman and Mary Fleahman executed excepted from the conveyances part of the oil and gas interests that they owned. Therefore, the oil and gas rights that Reinholtz, Miller, and KOAG claim did not terminate upon W.T. Fleahman’s and Mary Fleahman’s deaths. However, the court of appeals below upheld the trial court’s determination that Reinholtz’s and Miller’s interests were terminated by the Marketable Title Act. Based on our precedent, we leave that holding in place. Further, because the court of appeals erred in concluding that W.T. Fleahman’s oil and gas rights terminated upon his death, it erred in concluding that KOAG could have no interest in those rights. Summary judgment in favor of Peppertree Farms and Jay and Amy Moore on their claims against KOAG and on KOAG’s counterclaims was erroneous. {¶ 34} For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals as it applies to the claims of Reinholtz and Miller, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals as it pertains to KOAG, and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cause remanded. O’CONNOR, C.J., and DEWINE, STEWART, and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. DONNELLY, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by FISCHER, J. _________________ DONNELLY, J., dissenting. {¶ 35} This case should be dismissed as having been improvidently allowed. It does not involve issues of “public or great general interest.” Article IV, Section 2(B)(2)(e), Ohio Constitution. It is highly fact-specific and the issues involved were resolved below. I dissent. 13 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO FISCHER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. _________________ Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty Co., L.P.A., Matthew W. Onest, and Wayne A. Boyer, for appellees. Hanlon, Estadt, McCormick & Schramm Co., L.P.A., Erik A. Schramm Jr., and Kyle W. Bickford, for appellants. Emens, Wolper, Jacobs & Jasin Law Firm Co., L.P.A., Cody Smith, and Sean E. Jacobs, urging affirmance for amici curiae, Gregory A. Goble and Brenda S. Goble. _________________ 14