ILNews

Payment of ‘ad valorem’ taxes sustain ownership in mineral interest

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Reversing the trial court’s ruling, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that a woman’s payment of “ad valorem” taxes on a mineral interest in Posey County prevented the lapse of her partial ownership.

Carolyn Sue Stinson appealed Posey Circuit Court’s finding that she had not paid real estate taxes on the ownership of the mineral interest and that any taxes she did pay on the royalties were not publicly documented.

The appellee, George Woodcock III, argued Stinson’s mineral interest lapsed because her tax payments were for “ad valorem” taxes.

In L.C. Westervelt, Margaret Fox, Joe Dan Trigg, Attorney-in-fact and Trustee for Lillian Guild, Marilyn Guild Ramah Lee Jones, Janice Trigg and the Guild Family Trust, Barbara Killen, Patricia Kunc, Jacqueline Medley, Paul Fennessey, Carolyn Sue Stinson, R.D. Jones, Inc., and their unknown spouses, grantees, representatives, successors, heirs, and devisees v. George Woodcock III, d/b/a West Drilling Company, 65A01-1311-PL-501, the Court of Appeals declined to read the statute as narrowly as Woodcock.

The COA noted Indiana Code 32-23-10-3(a) says a lapse in a mineral interest is prevented when “taxes are paid on the mineral interest by the owner of the mineral interest.”

Also the Court of Appeals found evidence contradicting Woodcock’s assertion that Stinson’s tax payments do not appear in the public record. The COA pointed out the county did keep track of Stinson’s mineral ownership by assessing taxes on her interest and generating tax statements that included legal descriptions and well numbers.

 “But even if Woodcock is correct that the County’s records do not include all the information they should, we decline to hold Stinson may be divested of her mineral rights solely by virtue of the Posey County Auditor’s recordkeeping procedures,” Judge Melissa May wrote.

Judge L. Mark Bailey concurred with the result but, in a separate opinion, argued the majority did not have to inquire into whether and how taxes were paid and recorded.

Since oil has continued to be drilled from the property associated with Stinson’s mineral interest, Bailey contended the plain language of the statute says that was enough to sustain her ownership.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT