Plaintiff contests defendant’s handling of gas royalties amidst probate dispute

Laura Sutherly’s legal battle against Richard M. Theaker II took a significant turn as the Ohio Court of Appeals denied her applications for reconsideration and en banc consideration. On February 11, 2026, Laura Sutherly filed these applications in the Seventh Appellate District of Belmont County, challenging a previous decision involving Richard M. Theaker II. The court’s denial marks another chapter in a complex case centered around gas royalty interests and probate court judgments.

The crux of the case lies in Sutherly’s claim that an error was made when the trial court decided to vacate a probate court judgment regarding her entitlement to half of a gas royalty interest. She argued that this decision should have been barred by res judicata, which prevents re-litigation of issues already settled by a competent court. However, the appellate judges disagreed with her interpretation, stating that Theaker II lacked authority to transfer the royalty interest as it did not belong to the decedent or his trust. This conclusion was based on their finding that the rights vested automatically in Theaker II upon the decedent’s death.

Sutherly’s request for reconsideration was built on claims of “obvious error” and issues not fully considered by the court initially. However, her arguments were found to merely reiterate points previously raised during appeal without identifying new errors or overlooked issues. Similarly, her application for en banc consideration aimed to highlight conflicts between this decision and prior rulings within the same district, particularly concerning probate proceedings and issue preclusion doctrines. Despite her efforts, no intradistrict conflict was found that warranted such consideration.

In terms of relief sought from the court, Sutherly aimed for a reversal of decisions impacting her claimed ownership over mineral rights tied to family estate matters. She contended that procedural missteps occurred when addressing these disputes outside statutory provisions governing final judgments in probate cases.

Representing Laura Sutherly were attorneys Mac P. Malone and Thomas L. Feher from Thompson Hine LLP, while Richard M. Theaker II had legal representation from Karen S. Hockstad and Matthew H. Sommer at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. Judges Carol Ann Robb, Cheryl L. Waite, and Mark A. Hanni presided over this case under Case No. 25 BE 0003.