Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on October 16, 2010 at 12:35

NO, NO, NO, Baron, it's a terrorist conspiracy. 8-)

Would retained mineral rights like this be any different than "normal" mineral rights? Most particularly, would the mineral rights revert to the state after 10 years if there's no production? Toledo bend was created in the 60's.

I'll bet water rights and environmental questions are a real bear around Toledo Bend. Two states, multiple agencies, the Corps of Engineers, electric utilities and their regulators, wetland areas, nearby national forest land, rice farmers downstream, and extra federal involvement because of the interstate nature of the lake.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on October 17, 2010 at 4:12

Mac, all the deeds that I have looked at under the lake, the minerals were reserved to the Grantor. All of my research has been on the Louisiana side of the lake. Under most cases the minerals will be held by the Grantor into perpetuity. Some problems have been created onshore in areas where the lake didn't rise to the expected levels and the lands were sold back to the current surface owners. All the deeds that I have read had language stating that the original grantor would have the first option to purchase these lands if the state would ever sell them. In the few cases that I have looked at where lands have been sold, the original landowner was not given the option to buy them back.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on October 18, 2010 at 3:49

From the mineral code:
B. When land is acquired from any person by an acquiring authority through act of sale, exchange, donation, or other contract, or by condemnation or expropriation, and a mineral right subject to the prescription of nonuse is reserved in the instrument or judgment by which the land is acquired, prescription of the mineral right is interrupted as long as title to the land remains with the acquiring authority, or any successor that is also an acquiring authority. The instrument or judgment shall reflect the intent to reserve or exclude the mineral rights from the acquisition and their imprescriptibility as authorized under the provisions of this Section and shall be recorded in the conveyance records of the parish in which the land is located

C. If part of the land subject to the mineral right as set forth in Subsection B is divested by the acquiring authority to another who is not an acquiring authority, the mineral right is not divided. However, prescription of the mineral right as to the land divested shall commence and accrue unless it is interrupted by use of the mineral right.

As to the right of first refusal:

E. Rights or interests in land originally acquired by an acquiring authority through expropriation and subject to a mineral reservation shall not be transferred by the same or subsequent acquiring authority to another who is not an acquiring authority, unless prior to the transfer:

(1) The acquiring authority first offers to sell or transfer the same right or interest back to the person or entity, or his heirs or successors, from whom such right or interest was originally acquired, if such person or entity still retains the mineral rights reserved.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve P on October 17, 2010 at 19:03

According to Ms. Jane (and the La. Mineral Code) prescription of mineral rights runs neither in favor of nor against the GREAT State of Louisiana. In other words, if you sell land to the State and reserve your minerals, then the 10 years becomes a non-issue. We would have to send Jack back to Ms. Jane, and perhaps pay at $300/hr to find out about those lands acquired by the State of La. for Toledo Bend but then sold back to the original landowners.

Got a great belly laugh from the Ms. Jane diversion. Thanks, Jack.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on October 18, 2010 at 3:50

See my response above from the mineral code

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page