In Senterra Ltd. v. Winland, 2019-Ohio-4387, Ohio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals held that an examiner, after identifying the root of title and finding that an exception to marketable record title applies, should review the next preceding conveyance to determine if there is still an exception when determining whether a severed mineral interest is extinguished under Ohio’s Marketable Title Act (OMTA). This process is repeated until a conveyance is found, if any, that (i) is followed by 40 years with no exception to marketable record title and (ii) was recorded subsequent to the severance deed. In the years since Senterra, Ohio courts have followed its “rolling analysis” when determining the proper root of title under the OMTA.
For example, in Crozier v. Pipe Creek Conservancy, LLC, 2023-Ohio-4297, the Seventh District held that the trial court erred by ending its root of title analysis with deeds recorded in 1973 and 1974 (being the first potential roots of title in this case) instead of following Senterra’s “rolling analysis” and continuing back in the chain of title to a 1949 deed for the root of title. That decision was appealed and, over a year ago, the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted one proposition of law for review: “‘Root of title’ is fixed as that title transaction most recent to be recorded as a of a date forty years prior to the time when marketability is being determined.”
Last week, after reviewing the parties’ briefings and hearing oral arguments, the Court dismissed the appeal as having been improvidently accepted. Crozier v. Pipe Creek Conservancy, L.L.C., 2025-Ohio-1291. The Court held that the appellants waived their argument that the root of title is fixed when they conceded that the root of title should be determined by using Senterra’s “rolling analysis” in both the trial court and court of appeals. Had the Court reversed the Seventh District’s decision in Senterra and held that the root of title is fixed, meaning no “rolling analysis” is permitted, that would have had an enormous impact on the application of the OMTA to severed mineral interests in Ohio. While no such holding was made in this case, the Court has demonstrated a willingness to hear the issue and could potentially accept the same issue for review in a future appeal.
[View source.]
