Contract discrepancy
So the landman rushed us and a two dozen more familes to sign a contract in late 2007 before we knew what we were sitting on. I dont have to like it but its a fact that we should have waited and asked more questions. Since the landman (whom I wont mention) only had the original contract at signing time, he said he'd mail us a copy, but we never received it. So off the the courthouse I go to get a 12 page copy of my contract that includes the signatures of 23 families, forming a tract of 54 acres. Now on this contract, there is a witness signature besides the landman and my wife and I. This is erroneous because there wasnt another witness during contract signing. This bogus witness signature is on all 23 contracts. Is this reasonable cause for a contract anullment? Oh, and yes, I am looking for a loophole. :)
Views: 173
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by slowpoke on
-
For what I'm asking about, lack of a witness is not the question. I think the question is whether falsifying a witness rises to the level of anulling the contract by law.
-
-
Not exactly. :)
Its his word against 4 families that Ive contacted so far and I anticipate that number to grow to 23 families. Again, I intend to talk to a lawyer to see what options are available. I dont intend to cut off my nose to spite my face. We have a contract that pays 20% royalty and I for one dont want it tied up in court. I do want to know what my options are though.
-
Permalink Reply by po boy on
-
AM I understanding you signed a lease and are trying to get it set aside because of a possible technicality ? Why? Do you think you got cheated? Was the value of the area more than you got at the time you sold? Is the difference you could get today over the deal you got, great enough to cover the cost of litigation?
-
-
You are understanding correctly. My lease was let at 200/acre @ 20%. My opinion is that I, like others signed a poor contract because I didnt know the worth of my property. An error on my part. Did I get cheated? Im glad you asked that. My property was leased far below its value, but technically, no, I wasnt cheated. However, technically, information was falsified on a legal document.
-
Permalink Reply by Pat on
-
"He had his fingers crossed" is one of the funniest things I have seen in a long time.
As for the question that started this thread. You admitted signing the lease. I'm just saying think about that. You are saying you agreed to and signed a lease but somebody came later and added their name to it, as a witness, right or wrong on that part. The part you need to think about is you are SAYING YOU signed the lease.
-
-
Good to hear all views on this. I may be barking up the wrong tree, but I intend to get an attorneys opinion. If an attorney thinks it would be considered an inconsequential mistake by a court, then I will be satisfied. I will drop this into someones hands who has a better understanding of the law than I.
-
Permalink Reply by WHuguet on
-
A mineral lease does not have to be an authentic act (two witnesses and a notary) to be valid. It simply has to be in writing and signed by the Lessor.
Companies usually require that the lease be authentic b/c it is self-proving in court (does not require witnesses). It is an extra level of protection in case the individual says they didn't sign it and you get into a he said - she said.
If you signed the lease and cashed the check good luck on a witness technicality.
-
-
Ok,
So they got a witness to sign back at the office.
Even if they admit that, it will reflect poorly on the landman or might run afoul of some sort of minor criminal law, but I don't think it will invalidate a lease on grounds of fraud. That is the real question here. The lessor and lessee agreed on price, royalty and terms, the lease was signed and checks changed hands.
If one witness is all you have, again I say good luck.
Now, if the lease language or terms were altered after the fact, then you might have something, but that wasn't the question.
-
-
WHuguet,
If you read the entire thread, you will see that Ive only had a chance to talk with 4 families that signed the contract. All 4 have told me the witness in question was not present. There are 23 families signed in the tract. As of today, its 4 against 1. As I and others have time, that number may grow to 23 against 1 when this shakes out.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Blog Posts
The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling
Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…
ContinuePosted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
-
Fayetteville Shale
149 members
-
North Caddo Parish
358 members
-
Central Texas Gas
63 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
