## Facts

- In 1916, Elvira Sprague and her husband conveyed land to Fred Waters but expressly reserved the oil and gas rights.
- Sprague died in 1931 and devised the reserved oil and gas rights by will to her daughters; the will and related transfers were not recorded until 1957.
- In 1936, Fred Waters and his wife conveyed the surface estate to members of the Waters family; that deed did not mention the earlier mineral reservation.
- The Waters family maintained an unbroken, recorded chain of title to the surface estate for more than forty years, culminating in a 1980 conveyance to William and Shirley Waters.
- Plaintiffs, as descendants claiming fractional interests in the severed oil and gas rights, filed an action seeking partition of those mineral interests and named the surface owners and other mineral co-owners as defendants.
- The trial court recognized plaintiffs’ mineral interests and ordered partition; the court of appeals reversed under Ohio’s Marketable Title Act, concluding the severed mineral interests were extinguished.

## Issues

1. Whether a holder of “marketable record title” under Ohio’s Marketable Title Act takes subject to an interest arising from a recorded “title transaction” during the forty-year period, even if that interest is in an independent chain of title.
2. Whether recording a qualifying “title transaction” is equivalent to filing a statutory notice of claim sufficient to preserve a severed mineral interest from extinguishment.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals.
- The Court held that marketable record title is subject to interests arising from recorded title transactions under R.C. 5301.49(D), including interests in an independent chain of title.
- The Court held that recording a “title transaction” is equivalent to filing a notice of claim under R.C. 5301.51–.52 within the forty-year period.
- The Court concluded plaintiffs’ severed oil and gas interests were not extinguished and continued to encumber the surface title; the trial court’s relief was reinstated in substance.

## Legal Principles

- A “marketable record title” under R.C. 5301.47(A) and 5301.48 is expressly subject to exceptions in R.C. 5301.49.
- Under R.C. 5301.49(D), interests arising out of a recorded “title transaction” after the effective date of the root of title remain effective against marketable record title, even when the interest derives from an independent chain.
- “Title transaction” is broadly defined to include transactions affecting title to any interest in land, including title by will or descent.
- Recording a qualifying title transaction during the forty-year period serves the same preservation function as recording a notice of claim under R.C. 5301.51–.52.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Marketable Title Act did not extinguish the severed oil and gas interests because recorded title transactions in the mineral owners’ independent chain preserved those interests and operated as the equivalent of a statutory notice of claim, leaving the surface owners’ marketable record title subject to the mineral encumbrance.


Heifner v. Bradford, 4 Ohio St. 3d 49 (Ohio 1983)