Opinion ID: 4033892
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The 2006 Version of the ODMA Applies

Text: {¶ 16} Because James Albanese and Lipperman filed their complaints after June 30, 2006, our holding in Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., ____ Ohio St.3d ____, 2016-Ohio-5796, __ N.E.3d __, is dispositive of both appeals and renders moot the issues raised in proposition of law Nos. 1 and 2. {¶ 17} Both James Albanese’s and Lipperman’s complaints were predicated upon the 1989 ODMA, and in resolving the matters, both the trial court and the court of appeals applied the 1989 ODMA. In Corban, however, this court was presented with the following state-law question certified by a federal court: “Does the 2006 version or the 1989 version of the ODMA apply to claims asserted after 2006 alleging that the rights to oil, gas, and other minerals automatically vested in the surface land holder prior to the 2006 amendments as a result of abandonment?” Id. at ¶ 1. We answered that the 2006 version of the ODMA applies to claims asserted after June 30, 2006, because the 1989 version of the ODMA was not self-executing. {¶ 18} Under the 1989 version of the ODMA, a severed mineral interest was “deemed abandoned and vested in the owner of the surface” if none of the following applied: (1) the mineral interest was in coal or was coal-related, (2) the mineral interest was held by the United States, the state, or any other political body described in the statute, or (3) a saving event occurred within the statutorily provided 20-year period. Sub.S.B. No. 223, 142 Ohio Laws, Part I, 981, 985-988 (“S.B. 223”). Because “deemed” means only that the mineral interest is presumed abandoned, judicial action, typically by way of a quiet-title action, was required by the surface owner for a conclusive determination that the mineral interest was abandoned and vested in the surface owner. Corban at ¶ 25. 6 January Term, 2016 {¶ 19} The 2006 version of the ODMA2 adds additional requirements. It provides, in R.C. 5301.56(E): Before a mineral interest becomes vested under division (B) of this section in the owner of the surface of the lands subject to the interest, the owner of the surface of the lands subject to the interest shall do both of the following: (1) Serve notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to each holder or each holder’s successors or assignees, at the last known address of each, of the owner’s intent to declare the mineral interest abandoned. If service of notice cannot be completed to any holder, the owner shall publish notice of the owner’s intent to declare the mineral interest abandoned at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in each county in which the land that is subject to the interest is located. The notice shall contain all of the information specified in division (F) of this section. (2) At least thirty, but not later than sixty days after the date on which the notice required under division (E)(1) of this section is served or published, as applicable, file in the office of the county recorder of each county in which the surface of the land that is subject to the interest is located an affidavit of abandonment that contains all of the information specified in division (G) of this section. (Emphasis added.) 2 The ODMA was amended again in 2014, 2013 Sub.H.B. No. 72, but the relevant language remains the same. 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 20} Therefore, under the 2006 ODMA, in order for a severed mineral interest to be deemed abandoned and vested in the surface owner (1) the mineral interest cannot be in coal, (2) the mineral interest cannot be held by certain entities, (3) no saving event can have occurred during the relevant period, and (4) the surface owner “shall” have served notice and filed the required affidavit. Use of the word “shall” means that the notice and affidavit obligations are mandatory, so a surface owner’s failure to provide notice to the mineral-rights holder would render further analysis under the ODMA unnecessary. The mineral rights cannot be deemed abandoned if the mineral-rights holder has not been provided notice. {¶ 21} This result is confirmed by looking at other parts of the ODMA. For example, the statutorily provided 20-year period looks back 20 years from the date of the service of notice required by R.C. 5301.56(E) to determine whether a saving event occurred that would preclude abandonment of the severed mineral interest. R.C. 5301.56(B)(3). Absent service of the notice, there is no date from which the look back can occur. Also, the 2006 ODMA specifically provides that notice and an affidavit are required before the mineral interest becomes “vested” in the surface owner. R.C. 5301.56(E). Accordingly, the surface owner’s service of the notice and filing of the affidavit are required under the 2006 ODMA, and if those requirements are not met, the severed mineral interest cannot be deemed abandoned and instead remains with the mineral-interest holder. {¶ 22} Therefore, because neither Lipperman nor James Albanese complied with the statutory notice and affidavit provisions found in R.C. 5301.56(E), the severed mineral rights never vested in them, but remain with the Batmans. Because the 2006 version of the ODMA applies in these cases and Lipperman and James Albanese failed to comply with R.C. 5301.56(B) and (E), the first and second propositions of law are moot. 8 January Term, 2016