Walker v. Shondrick-Nau
| Decision Date | 03 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 13 NO 402 |
| Citation | 2014 Ohio 1499 |
| Parties | JON WALKER, JR., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. PATRICIA J. SHONDRICK-NAU, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN R. NOON AND SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE JOHN R. NOON TRUST, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Hon. Gene Donofrio
Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich
Hon. Cheryl L. Waite
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Patricia J. Shondrick-Nau, Executrix of the Estate of John R. Noon and Successor Trustee of the John R. Noon Trust, appeals from a Noble County Common Pleas Court judgment granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Jon Walker, Jr., on appellee's claim to quiet title as to the mineral estate ( oil and gas interests) underlying a tract of land in Noble County.
{¶2} John Noon purchased the disputed property, located in Enoch Township, in 1964. On July 26, 1965, Noon severed the mineral rights and created a separate mineral estate by reserving the mineral rights to himself when he sold the surface rights on that date.
{¶3} In 1970, the surface rights to the property were sold twice. In both of the 1970 conveyances, the deeds included the mineral rights reservation and referenced the volume and page number where the mineral rights reservation was recorded. In 1977, the surface rights were sold again. And again the deed included the mineral rights reservation and referenced the volume and page number where the mineral rights reservation was recorded.
{¶4} Appellee purchased the subject property in 2009. The property is described in two deeds. The first tract of land is 37.042 acres and the second tract is 5.186 acres.
{¶5} On December 2, 2011, appellee sent a notice of abandonment of mineral interest to Noon.
{¶6} On January 10, 2012, Noon filed an affidavit and claim to preserve mineral interest.
{¶7} On April 27, 2012, appellee filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and to quiet title. He requested that the trial court rule that he is the lawful owner of the mineral rights. Appellee asserted that the mineral rights merged with the surface estate no later than March 22, 1992, by way of the prior version of R.C. 5301.56 (the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act), which was in effect from March 22, 1989, until June 30, 2006. He also claimed Noon abandoned any interest in the mineral rights when he failed to preserve them from expiring.
{¶8} Noon filed a motion for summary judgment. He alleged that the filing of a mineral preservation notice pursuant to R.C. 5301.56(H) preserved the severed mineral interest and R.C. 5301.56(D) indefinitely preserves a severed mineral interest. On these bases, Noon claimed he was entitled to summary judgment on appellee's claims.
{¶9} Appellee then filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. He asserted that because the transactions relied upon by Noon did not represent title transactions in the mineral estate, those transactions did not operate as a savings event under R.C. 5301.56.
{¶10} The trial court found that no facts were in dispute. The court framed the question before it as, "do the surface transfers in 1970 and 1977 count as 'title transactions'?" The court answered in the negative. The court found that although the transactions were within the 20-year period prior to March 22, 1989, they did not affect an interest in land as contemplated by R.C. 5301.56(F). The court further found that any discussion of the current version of R.C. 5301.56, effective June 30, 2006, was moot because as of June 30, 2006, any interest Noon had in the mineral rights had already been abandoned. Therefore, the trial court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment and denied Noon's motion for summary judgment. It went on to declare that appellee is the true and rightful owner of the oil and gas underlying the subject property and that Noon has no interest in the subject oil and gas.
{¶11} Noon filed a timely notice of appeal on April 17, 2013. Noon passed away after the filing of this appeal. His daughter, Shondrick-Nau, in her capacity as the executrix of Noon's estate and successor trustee of Noon's trust, was substituted as the appellant in this case.
{¶12} Appellant raises two assignments of error. The assignments of error share a common basis in law and fact. Appellant then raises three distinct issues for review. For ease of discussion, we will treat each issue for review separately.
{¶13} Appellant's assignments of error state:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT-NOON.
{¶14} In reviewing a trial court's decision on a summary judgment motion, appellate courts apply a de novo standard of review. Cole v. Am. Industries & Resources Corp., 128 Ohio App.3d 546, 552, 715 N.E.2d 1179 (7th Dist.1998). Thus, we shall apply the same test as the trial court in determining whether summary judgment was proper. Civ.R. 56(C) provides that the trial court shall render summary judgment if no genuine issue of material fact exists and when construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, reasonable minds can only conclude that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. State ex rel. Parsons v. Flemming, 68 Ohio St.3d 509, 511, 628 N.E.2d 1377 (1994). A "material fact" depends on the substantive law of the claim being litigated. Hoyt, Inc. v. Gordon & Assoc., Inc., 104 Ohio App.3d 598, 603, 662 N.E.2d 1088 (8th Dist.1995), citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
{¶15} This case involves the application of the current and prior versions of R.C. 5301.56, known as Ohio's Dormant Mineral Act.
{¶16} The prior version of R.C. 5301.56 was enacted on March 22, 1989. The 1989 version of R.C. 5301.56 provided, in pertinent part:
(B)(1) Any mineral interest held by any person, other than the owner of the surface of the lands subject to the interest, shall be deemed abandoned and vested in the owner of the surface, if none of the following applies:
* * *
(c) Within the preceding twenty years, one or more of the following has occurred:
(i) The mineral interest has been the subject of a title transaction that had been filed or recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the lands are located[.]
* * *
(2) A mineral interest shall not be deemed abandoned under division (B)(1) of this section because none of the circumstances described in that division apply, until three years from the effective date of this section.
{¶17} The current version of R.C. 5301.56 became effective on June 30, 2006. The most substantial change to the statute was the addition of the notice requirements giving the owner of the abandoned mineral interest the opportunity to reclaim his or her interest. R.C. 5301.56 now provides, in pertinent part:
(B) Any mineral interest held by any person, other than the owner of the surface of the lands subject to the interest, shall be deemed abandoned and vested in the owner of the surface of the lands subject to the interest if the requirements established in division (E) of this section are satisfied and none of the following applies:
(1) The mineral interest is in coal, or in mining or other rights pertinent to or exercisable in connection with an interest in coal * * *.
(2) The mineral interest is held by the United States, this state, or any political subdivision, body politic, or agency of the United States or this state * * * .
(3) Within the twenty years immediately preceding the date on which notice is served or published under division (E) of this section, one or more of the following has occurred:
(a) The mineral interest has been the subject of a title transaction that has been filed or recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the lands are located.
To continue reading
Request your trial