Twin Cities - incompetent or dishonest - you decide
I have an unusual situation and I would like some opinions from some of the experts out there. First, I bought a home on 10 acres last Fall. The minerals rights were transfered on the Title and the land was under a lease from Twin Cities from April 2008 ($500/acre, 5 years, 3/16 royalty). Several months later I met the neighboring land owner and he made a comment about our mineral rights would become available in a few weeks. It turns out that my land was in a larger 40 acre tract and had the minerals reserved Aril 1999. Long story short is the previous owner of my land never owned the mineral rights and therefore I did not own the mineral rights. The ten year clock just ran out and I now legally own the mineral rights. After several attempts to contact Twin Cities the Land person finally returns my call. The initial response was that I don't own the mineral rights at all because the Federal Government reserved them in 1862. It turns out that there is an adjacent 40 acres that the government reserved the mineral rights on, but not on my land. We straightened that out and then Twin Cities said they would "see what they could do on a new offer". Several days passed and Twin Cities called and said the issue was with their leagal department. Several more days passed and the legal department claims the origional lease is binding under Louisiana Mineral Code 144. My position and my new attorney's position is that the lease was not leagally binding because the previous owner did not have executive privilages over the mineral rights. I believe Twin Cities is being dishonest but may be they are just completely incompetent. You decide.
Tags: Twin Cities
Views: 190
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on -
Your missing the point.
Imangine a lessor who owns half his minerals, he leases. After which he buys the other half. Guess what, if the lease provided for it, and the standard form does, the first lease now covers all the mineral rights, he does not get to lease again.
-
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on
-
From my standard lease that I use
"This lease shall also extend and apply to any interest therein which Lessor may hereafter acquire, including, but not limited to, outstanding mineral rights acquired by reversion, prescription or otherwise, and includes battures, accretions, roads, highways, easements, right-of-ways and all land, if any, contiguous or adjacent to, or adjoining the land particularly described above. Lessor agrees to execute any supplemental instrument requested by lessee for a more complete or accurate description of said land"
-
Permalink Reply by E & E on
-
the above 2 posts are exactly why you need to be specific about every little detail on your "Exhibit A"....if you don't..... the bastards will rip you blind.... and laugh about it.
Earl
-
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on
-
OK, let's consider the morality of this.
Am I correct on the following?
1) Twin Cites made a good faith lease offer.
2) The surface owner signed the lease, and received his money.
3) You bought the land, believing that you were buying the mineral rights, and that the mineral rights were leased. The price you paid for the land was based on these assumptions. You expected to be bound by the lease.
4) Now you own the mineral rights.
5) If the lease is valid, Twin Cities, the previous landowner, and you all get exactly what you all expected to get out of the deals at the times the lease and land sale were executed.
Forget for a moment whether you can get the lease invalidated.
Aren't you the one being immoral here? Don't we berate the landmen and production companies when they get out of something on a technicality?
-
Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on
-
Incompetant or dishonest?
Or maybe neither one.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
Natchitoches Parish
399 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
-
Franklin County, Texas
8 members
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Rusk County
97 members
-
Vernon Parish
59 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
242 members
-
Sabine County, Texas
172 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
Angelina County, TX
87 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
