Haas v. Chesapeake , 2017 Ohio 5702 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Haas v. Chesapeake, 
    2017-Ohio-5702
    .]
    STATE OF OHIO, CARROLL COUNTY
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    SEVENTH DISTRICT
    DAVID L. HAAS                   )                CASE NO. 13 CA 0895
    )
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT      )
    )
    VS.                             )                OPINION
    )
    CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, L.L.C., )
    et al.                          )
    )
    DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES     )
    CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                        Civil Appeal from the Court of Common
    Pleas of Carroll County, Ohio
    Case No. 12 CVH 27056
    JUDGMENT:                                        Affirmed.
    Remanded.
    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiff-Appellant, David L. Haas:          Atty. Brendan Delay
    24500 Center Ridge Road, Suite 160
    Westlake, Ohio 44145
    For Defendant-Appellee,                          Atty. Timothy McGranor
    Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C.:                  Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
    52 East Gay Street
    Columbus, Ohio 43215
    For Defendants-Appellees,                        Atty. Brent A. Barnes
    Marbel Investments, L.L.C. and                   Geiger Teeple Robinson
    Marbel Investments Oil and Gas, L.L.C:             & McElwee, PLLC
    1844 W. State St., Suite A
    Alliance, Ohio 44601
    JUDGES:
    Hon. Cheryl L. Waite
    Hon. Gene Donofrio
    Hon. Carol Ann Robb
    -2-
    Dated: June 29, 2017
    [Cite as Haas v. Chesapeake, 
    2017-Ohio-5702
    .]
    WAITE, J.
    {¶1}    Appellant David L. Haas appeals an October 16, 2013 decision of the
    Carroll County Common Pleas Court to grant summary judgment in favor of
    Appellees Marbel Investments L.L.C., Marbel Investments Oil and Gas L.L.C.
    (collectively referred to as the “Marbel companies”), and Chesapeake Exploration
    L.L.C. (“Chesapeake”). Appellant argues that the trial court erroneously applied the
    2006 Dormant Mineral Act (“DMA”) instead of the 1989 version of the statute.
    Appellant also argues that the trial court improperly disregarded several aspects of
    his affidavit. Pursuant to Albanese v. Batman, 
    148 Ohio St.3d 85
    , 
    2016-Ohio-5814
    ,
    
    68 N.E.3d 800
    , the trial court’s decision to apply the 2006 version of the Act is
    correct. However, because Appellant’s claims regarding the Marketable Title Act
    (“MTA”) are still pending in the trial court, the matter is remanded for consideration of
    these claims.
    Factual and Procedural History
    {¶2}    This appeal concerns the ownership of mineral interests beneath
    approximately 140 acres of land located in Carrollton. On September 8, 1865, James
    A. and Kate Saxton conveyed the surface interests of the land to James M. Scott.
    The Saxtons reserved the mineral interests through the following language:
    “Reserving to said Saxton, his heirs and assigns, all the minerals, oils, or other
    materials under said surface with the right to use so much of said surface as he or
    they may deem necessary to explore for, take out or remove therefrom any minerals,
    oil or other materials.” (8/30/13 Marbel Motion for Summary Judgment, Exh. E-1.)
    On February 11, 1913, a separate tax parcel was created for these mineral interests.
    -2-
    On October 14, 1943, Marshall Belden acquired the mineral interests from the Saxton
    heirs.
    {¶3}   Title to the surface rights was transferred several times before Beverly
    Hass conveyed the surface rights to Appellant on July 24, 1970. The deed was
    recorded on August 14, 1970. The deed referenced the Saxton reservation. On
    November 10, 1976, Appellant filed a complaint seeking to quiet title pursuant to R.C.
    5301.53 and R.C. 5301.56 against the Heirs of James A. Saxton, Kate Saxton, Sun
    Oil Company, J.T. Cogsil, Mary B. Barber, Oliver Cogsil, and Marshall Belden. On
    December 9, 1976, Belden filed an affidavit of preservation. On January 6, 1977, the
    trial court granted Belden’s motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
    {¶4}   On May 13, 1996, the Estate of Marshall Belden conveyed the mineral
    interests to J.R. Operating Company (“J.R.”).        On June 24, 1996, J.R. filed an
    affidavit of preservation. On February 17, 1998, J.R. conveyed the mineral interests
    to Marbel Trust. The mineral interests were later transferred to Marbel Investments,
    L.L.C., and then to Marbel Investments Oil and Gas, L.L.C. On January 3, 2012,
    Chesapeake filed a “Release of Oil and Gas Lease,” terminating its lease with
    Appellant. Chesapeake later entered into a lease with the Marbel companies.
    {¶5}   On February 14, 2012, Appellant filed a complaint sounding in breach
    of contract and seeking declaratory judgment and specific performance against
    Chesapeake. Chesapeake removed the case to federal court based on diversity
    jurisdiction. After the case was removed, Appellant filed a motion for leave to amend
    his complaint to add the Marbel companies as codefendants and to include DMA and
    -3-
    MTA claims. On January 28, 2013, the federal court granted Appellant’s motion.
    After the Marbel companies were added as codefendants, diversity jurisdiction no
    longer existed and the federal court remanded the case to the common pleas court.
    {¶6}   On June 14, 2013, the Marbel companies filed a motion for summary
    judgment. On August 16, 2013, Appellant filed a combined motion in opposition and
    a cross-motion for summary judgment on all issues but his MTA claims. On August
    28, 2013, Chesapeake also filed a motion for summary judgment against Appellant.
    Two days later, the Marbel companies filed a second motion for summary judgment
    which the trial court merged with the first. On October 16, 2013, the trial court
    decided that Appellant failed to comply with the notice requirements of the 2006 DMA
    and granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment. While the trial court ruled on
    a number of other issues, including issues surrounding breach of contract and
    requests for specific performance, the trial court expressly determined that MTA
    claims were not ripe for summary judgment. The trial court’s decision contained
    Civ.R. 54(B) language. Appellant solely appeals the trial court’s decision as to the
    DMA.
    Summary Judgment
    {¶7}   An appellate court conducts a de novo review of a trial court’s decision
    to grant summary judgment, using the same standards as the trial court set forth in
    Civ.R. 56(C). Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 
    77 Ohio St.3d 102
    , 105, 
    671 N.E.2d 241
    (1996). Before summary judgment can be granted, the trial court must determine
    that: (1) no genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated, (2) the
    -4-
    moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, (3) it appears from the
    evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing the
    evidence most favorably in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary
    judgment is made, the conclusion is adverse to that party. Temple v. Wean United,
    Inc., 
    50 Ohio St.2d 317
    , 327, 
    364 N.E.2d 267
     (1977). Whether a fact is “material”
    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).
    {¶8}   “[T]he moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial
    court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record which
    demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element of the
    nonmoving party’s claim.” (Emphasis deleted.) Dresher v. Burt, 
    75 Ohio St.3d 280
    ,
    296, 
    662 N.E.2d 264
     (1996). If the moving party carries its burden, the nonmoving
    party has a reciprocal burden of setting forth specific facts showing that there is a
    genuine issue for trial. Id. at 293. In other words, when presented with a properly
    supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must produce some
    evidence to suggest that a reasonable factfinder could rule in that party’s favor.
    Brewer v. Cleveland Bd. of Edn., 
    122 Ohio App.3d 378
    , 386, 
    701 N.E.2d 1023
     (8th
    Dist.1997).
    {¶9}   The evidentiary materials to support a motion for summary judgment
    are listed in Civ.R. 56(C) and include the pleadings, depositions, answers to
    interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written
    stipulations of fact that have been filed in the case. In resolving the motion, the court
    -5-
    views the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Temple, 50
    Ohio St.2d at 327.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY WITHOUT RATIONALE APPLYING
    THE 2006 VERSION OF THE DORMANT MINERALS ACT R.C.
    5301.56 (B)(3) REQUIRING APPELLANT TO HAVE SENT ANY
    SUBSURFACE HOLDER THE STATUTORILY PRESCRIBED NOTICE
    OR BY RECORDING THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED AFFIDAVIT OF
    ABANDONMENT.
    {¶10} We note that the briefing schedule in this matter was completed prior to
    the Ohio Supreme Court’s recent DMA decisions. Appellant attempted to present a
    supplemental brief during oral argument. This supplemental brief was denied as
    untimely and will not be considered.
    {¶11} Appellant argues that the trial court erroneously applied the 2006
    version of the DMA instead of the 1989 version. In lieu of providing a substantive
    argument, Appellant pasted a nine-page article discussing the interplay between the
    1989 and 2006 versions of the DMA.           We can glean from Appellant’s limited
    discussion that he believes that the trial court should have applied the 1989 DMA and
    found that the surface and mineral interests reunited due to the lack of a savings
    event.
    {¶12} In response, Appellees collectively contend that Appellant cannot
    succeed in his claim regardless of whether the 1989 or 2006 DMA is applied.
    -6-
    Appellees urge that it is undisputed that Appellant failed to comply with the notice
    requirements and cannot succeed on a 2006 DMA claim. Regardless of whether the
    1989 or 2006 DMA applies, Appellees argue that its interests have been preserved
    through several claims of preservation and numerous title transactions.
    {¶13} The Ohio Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in Corban v.
    Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., __ Ohio St.3d __, 
    2016-Ohio-5796
    , __ N.E.3d __.
    The Court held that:
    [A]s of June 30, 2006, any surface holder seeking to claim dormant
    mineral rights and merge them with the surface estate is required to
    follow the statutory notice and recording procedures enacted in 2006 by
    H.B. 288.    These procedures govern the manner by which mineral
    rights are deemed abandoned and vested in the surface holder and
    apply equally to claims that the mineral interests were abandoned prior
    to June 30, 2006.
    Stalder v. Bucher, 7th Dist. No. 14 MO 0010, 
    2017-Ohio-725
    , ¶ 10, quoting Corban,
    
    supra, ¶ 31
    .
    {¶14} Appellant filed his complaint on February 14, 2012. As such, the 2006
    DMA controls this matter. Although Appellant appears to argue that the 1989 DMA
    was self-executing and automatically transferred ownership rights of the minerals by
    operation of law, the Corban Court clearly held otherwise. Accordingly, the trial court
    properly relied on the 2006 DMA.
    -7-
    {¶15} According to the Ohio Supreme Court, “[i]n order for a severed mineral
    interest to be deemed abandoned and vested in the surface owner under the 2006
    version of the ODMA, the owner of the surface rights must comply with R.C.
    5301.56(E).” Albanese, supra, at ¶ 27. Pursuant to R.C. 5301.56(E)(1), a surface
    owner attempting to reunite the surface with the mineral interests must “[s]erve 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.” The record clearly demonstrates that Appellant failed to
    serve Appellees with the requisite notice pursuant to R.C. 5301.56. Appellant does
    not dispute this finding. As such, the trial court properly determined that Appellant
    failed to comply with the 2006 DMA. Appellant’s first assignment of error is without
    merit and is overruled.
    {¶16} Appellant additionally argues that Appellees’ rights have been
    extinguished pursuant to the MTA. As noted by the trial court, Appellant did not raise
    this issue within his motion for summary judgment and summary judgment was
    limited to issues surrounding the DMA.       Consequently, the question of whether
    Appellees’ rights were extinguished pursuant to the MTA remain pending in the trial
    court. This record reflects that questions of fact remain as to whether or in what
    manner this matter is impacted by operation of the MTA and the matter must be
    remanded to the trial court to address these claims.
    {¶17} We also note that Appellant argued at oral argument that certain
    probate records show a break in the chain of title. Appellant failed to raise this
    -8-
    argument in his appellate brief, thus he is limited to a plain error review. Appellees
    attached copies of the following deeds to the August 30, 2013 motion for summary
    judgment: May 13, 1996 conveyance from the estate of Marshall Belden to J.R.,
    February 17, 1998 conveyance from J.R. to Marbel Trust, December 23, 2002
    conveyance from Marbel Trust to Marbel Investments, and a December 29, 2011
    conveyance from Marbel Investments to Marbel Oils and Gas.              (8/30/13 Marbel
    Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhs. F13-F17.)               These documents show an
    unbroken chain of title regarding the mineral interests, and Appellant has not
    demonstrated plain error in the trial court’s decision on this issue.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
    THE    TRIAL     COURT       ERRED      BY    DISREGARDING         “SOME
    ALLEGATIONS” IN APPELLANT'S AFFIDAVIT FOR PURPORTED
    LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHICH
    ALLEGATIONS WERE DISREGARDED.
    {¶18} Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously disregarded several
    aspects of his affidavit based on his lack of personal knowledge. Appellant contends
    that the trial court’s actions were arbitrary, as he detailed the basis of his personal
    knowledge within his affidavit.
    {¶19} In response, Appellees argue that Appellant has failed to demonstrate
    that the trial court’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable.
    Regardless, Appellees argue that this issue is moot since Appellant admittedly failed
    to comply with R.C. 5301.56(E).
    -9-
    {¶20} Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(E), “affidavits shall be made on personal
    knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall
    show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in the
    affidavit.” “ ‘[A] mere assertion of personal knowledge satisfies Civ.R. 56(E) if the
    nature of the facts in the affidavit combined with the identity of the affiant creates a
    reasonable inference that the affiant has personal knowledge of the facts in the
    affidavit.’ ” Bailey v. George, 7th Dist. No. 
    15 CO 0029
    , 
    2017-Ohio-767
    , ¶ 22, citing
    Ryan v. Huntington Trust, 
    2015-Ohio-1880
    , 
    35 N.E.3d 19
    , ¶ 24 (7th Dist.);
    Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Thorne, 6th Dist. No. L–09–1324, 
    2010-Ohio-4271
    ,
    ¶ 70.
    {¶21} A trial court’s decision to admit or exclude affidavit evidence is reviewed
    for an abuse of discretion. Carter v. U-Haul Internatl., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-310,
    
    2009-Ohio-5358
    , ¶ 9, citing Boggs v. The Scotts Co., 10th Dist. No. 04AP-425, 2005-
    Ohio-1264, ¶ 35; Sidenstricker v. Miller Pavement Maintenance, Inc., 
    158 Ohio App.3d 356
    , 
    2004-Ohio-4653
    , 
    815 N.E.2d 736
    , ¶ 23 (10th Dist.); Krischbaum v.
    Dillon, 
    58 Ohio St.3d 58
    , 65, 
    567 N.E.2d 1291
     (1991).
    {¶22} As earlier discussed, the threshold issue before the trial court in
    summary judgment was which version of the DMA was applicable to the parties’
    claims. As noted, the trial court properly determined the 2006 version applied and
    was looking at the evidence provided by the parties through that lens. The affidavit in
    question did not allege that Appellant complied with the notice requirements of the
    2006 DMA.       Due to his admitted failure to comply with the 2006 DMA notice
    -10-
    requirements, Appellant’s argument that the trial court did not accept his affidavit in
    full is moot. Even so, the record demonstrates that the trial court did not abuse its
    discretion in this regard. In one instance, Appellant averred that “[s]evered gas could
    not be transferred away from the property in 1866 since no pipelines then existed in
    Carroll County and no railroads existed in that township. The first commercial gas
    well was drilled in Ohio in 1884.” (8/16/13 Haas Aff., ¶13.) Appellant does not
    provide any information within the affidavit to demonstrate his personal knowledge as
    to the existence of pipelines and railroads in the 1800’s. We also note that much of
    Appellant’s affidavit is illegible, hindering review of the averments contained in the
    affidavit. We can certainly determine, however, that Appellant failed to provide a
    basis for personal knowledge of some averments. Appellant’s second assignment of
    error has no merit.
    Conclusion
    {¶23} Appellant argues that the trial court erroneously applied the 2006
    version of the DMA. Pursuant to Corban, supra, Appellant’s argument is without
    merit.    Appellant additionally argues that the trial court improperly disregarded
    several aspects of his affidavit. This record reflects that at least one of Appellant’s
    averments lack a basis for personal knowledge. Appellant’s arguments are without
    merit on these issues. However, Appellant’s contentions regarding application of the
    MTA to this matter remain pending before the trial court and issues of fact apparently
    remain to be decided. Because these issues remain in the court, we must remand
    the matter for consideration of Appellant’s claims regarding the MTA.
    -11-
    Donofrio, J., concurs.
    Robb, P.J., concurs.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13 CA 0895

Citation Numbers: 2017 Ohio 5702

Judges: Waite

Filed Date: 6/29/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/3/2017