Ohio Title Alert – “Minerals”
Faith Ranch and Farms Fund, Inc. v. PNC Bank, N.A. et al., 2026-Ohio-1145 (S.Ct. 2026)
One question Ohio title examiners must frequently ask themselves is: “Does the use of the term ‘minerals’ in this instrument include oil and gas?” While this is certainly not a new issue— having been addressed by the Ohio Supreme Court as early as 1898 in Detlor v. Holland, 57 Ohio St. 492 (1898) — the Court recently provided additional guidance in its April 2, 2026, decision in Faith Ranch and Farms Fund, Inc. v. PNC Bank, N.A. et al., 2026-Ohio-1145.
On appeal from the Seventh District, the dispute arose from a 1953 deed from C.C. Fay, as grantor, which reserved “the ‘right to mine and remove … coal or other minerals of any vein.’” Id. at ¶ 1. The Fay heirs argued that the reservation of “minerals” did include oil and gas, since “the deed did not otherwise indicate that oil and gas were excluded.” Id. at ¶ 10. Faith Ranch and Farms Fund, Inc., the successor-in-interest to the grantee, argued that “minerals” did not include oil and gas, “because the definition of ‘minerals’ does not include oil and gas.” Id.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court found in favor of Faith Ranch and upheld the rulings of both the trial court and Seventh District that “minerals,” in this instance, did not include oil and gas. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 8, 10, 27, 28. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Detlor, explaining that that “the phrase ‘other minerals” may, but does not necessarily, include oil and gas.” Id. at ¶ 11. In criticizing Faith Ranch’s argument, the Supreme Court noted that the definition of “minerals” varies but explained that differing dictionary definitions does not render the word ambiguous, and, after looking to “the context in which the word was used,” determined that no ambiguity existed. Id. at ¶ 13, 15. In disagreeing with the Fay heir’s argument, the Supreme Court looked to the language of the deed “more commonly associated with solid mineral extraction,” explaining, “The absence of words commonly associated with extracting oil and gas indicates that oil and gas were not included in the reservation.” Id. at ¶ 16.
The Faith Ranch decision is a useful reminder for Ohio title examiners to carefully review the full context of mineral reservations, rather than relying on the word “minerals” in isolation. A few additional minutes spent analyzing the operative language of an instrument can materially affect subsequent title research, leasing analysis, and ownership determinations.
This content is for educational and informational purposes only. Nothing in this article creates an attorney-client relationship or constitutes legal advice. Even where circumstances may appear similar, legal issues are highly fact-specific and readers should obtain advice tailored to their situation.
For more information regarding title issues, mineral rights and real estate matters, please contact Brian John or Nikki Klos.
