I agree with the person who says that when you but a piece of property that you own it lock, stock, and barrel, all the way to china. I do not understand why you can retain mineral rights to a property if you have no money invested in getting minerals out of the ground on your property. What in the world makes it right for someone to sell a property without selling everything, and I repeat, everything. I would go so far as to say, if the public would take a stand, and stop buying properties unless they got 100% of the property, maybe this could get the laws changed. I think that there are quite a few people out there, who, if they had been informed that they were not getting the mineral rights to their property, they would not have bought it in the first place. I think it is a shame that it is not a law to have to clearly state in the first sentence of a property sale whether or not they are getting all rights. This is something that should be addressed. Why is there not a state or nationwide Mineral rights registry, that ordinary people could access and know without a doubt what they are getting for their hard earned money. Why is there nothing in a deed or title that is current up to the minute of signing, that would let the buyer know what or where the mineral, surface, easements, leins, mortgages, and any thing else that might influence whether or not the buyer might want to spend their money on in buying the property? It looks like almost everything else in this country has to be spelled out for the ignorant people, (like ME), so how did this slip by, or was this a coincidence? It appears that money talks for the people who have it, and those who don't have it stay that way. It looks like the philosophy of the rich is to keep the poor people poor, Money talks, and poor people walk. I guess you get the drift.........Why is it so easy to hide the ownership of mineral rights? I don't think this is just a coincidence, It appears that maybe some lawmakers, or O/G companies, or someone with a big interest in mineral rights may have something to do with the ease of hiding mineral rights, If I am wrong, I apologize, but I don't think that this is something that just happened, or was overlooked. This is just my opinion,, and is worth just about as much as the time it took to write it down, yes this and a buck might get you a cup of coffee, (if you're lucky)

Views: 79

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree. I thought, by the way everyone talked, it was just disgruntled landowners who just assumed they were purchasing mineral rights along with their property. There is more to it than that in this case.
I may have this wrong, was there a requirement that the notary on the on the original deed also be the notary or subscribing witness on the Act of Correction? And that was not done?

I deleted the post containing the name of the plaintiff. I did not want to "out" them.
An act of correction that the original notary can file without the parties only pertains to an item that is not "material" to the transaction.

This is to correct typographical errors ONLY.

If the parties signed a correction without reading, shame on them.

If United Title was a party to fraud, then I hope the court will deal with them accordingly.
I just read the lawsuit that is a class action lawsuit against Brown.

The only thing that I can see that the plaintiffs allege is that they "assumed" that they would get mineral rights and that they didn't.

One important item thought, is that Brown in acting for the corporation did not disclose that the minerals were already sold to themselves as individuals.

Benson (attorney for the plaintiff) mentioned that the sale of the minerals was for the "paltry" some of $100.

In my limited research for myself, I have found that the mineral code does not have a provision for "lesion beyond moiety" for minerals.

This means that there is no minimum for the sale of minerals.

Jim is correct, it was filed Aug. 13 in Caddo, the suit number is 523,729 and also named defendant is Janet Brown.
i believe that in Louisiana after 10 years of non production the mineral rights go to the owner of the property at that time. but also look at ot the other way. if there was production on or effecting your property and you wanted to sell it you would want to keep getting your check.
Buddy, that's a good point! Also, think of all the land that would sit there and not be sold if people couldn't retain their mineral rights. Progress would come to a stand still to a certain degree while land sits because owners would not want to sell.
I'm fortunate to have obtained my mineral rights whenever I bought my property in 1999. The developer of the neighborhood evidently had foresight knowledge that this oil and gas exploration would become such a tremendous blessing that he somehow was able to keep mineral rights on properties sold to homeowners who built their homes on these lots. In my opinion this is unethical because back in 2000 not many people were aware of this potential exploration, but the developer found this loophole in the law and kept the mineral rights on these lots. I'm almost positive that if these landowners were aware that they were not obtaining ALL rights and privileges to these lots they would not have purchased them!
Mr. Anderson,

I don't believe that the average homeowner in town puts much thought into whether or not they are getting minerals with their property.

But since you own yours, once you start receiving royalties you will surely give that away if you ever sell your house. If not you would be unethical (according to your arguement).

People are buying property without mineral rights everyday. It would be foolish to sell them now.

People are buying without mineral rights now and they were buying without mineral rights then.

I do not have the minerals at my home but I sure am not blaming anyone.


© 2023   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service