Opinion ID: 6326323
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Gerrity Decision

Text: {¶ 11} In Gerrity, 162 Ohio St.3d 694, 2020-Ohio-6705, 166 N.E.3d 1230, a case that involved a mineral-interest holder who resided in a different county than the county where the real property at issue was located, we held that in order to provide proper notice under R.C. 5301.56(E) “[a] surface owner    must exercise reasonable diligence to identify all holders of the severed mineral interest,” id. at ¶ 41. Our opinion did not establish any rebuttable presumptions or state that any particular party carries a burden of proof. We explained that generally, a review of public records in the county where the mineral interest is located will “establish a baseline of reasonable diligence.” Id. at ¶ 36. We declined to draw a bright-line rule in the case and instead “provide[d] guidance in the context of the facts before us.” Id. at ¶ 31. We stated that in cases involving facts like those in Gerrity, the reasonable-diligence standard does not require the surface owner to search records outside of (1) the county where the mineral interest was located and (2) the county where the mineral-interest holder resided, according to the address listed on the certificate of transfer, when there was no indication that the mineral-interest holder had died, moved, or transferred the mineral interest. Id. at ¶ 32, 36. 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO