Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Westervelt v. Woodcock

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided August 11, 2014No. 65A01-1311-PL-501Published

1ConcurrenceBailey, Judge

The majority in this case concludes that Stinson paid ad valorem taxes on royalties she received from her mineral interest in land, and the payment of these taxes had the effect of tolling the Dormant Mineral Act’s (“the Act”) twenty-year period requiring reversion of an unused mineral interest. The majority accordingly reverses the trial court’s decision finding that Stinson’s interest had reverted to Woodcock. While I agree with the majority’s result, I disagree with the majority’s construction and application of the Act. I *81write separately to explain my disagreement with the majority’s…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Texaco, Inc. v. ShortSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Short v. Texaco, Inc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Miller v. WeberIndiana Court of Appeals · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API