Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on April 2, 2012 at 5:43

monks2302,

Great GHS FYI.  Thanks.

This is a prime example where GHS's "Henry's Mineral Estate History Book's" pricelessness comes in to play.

Finally, ONE for the UMOs Rights!

Two Thumbs Down for Justice Guidry's Opine... 

Thanks sesport II for the link.

DrWAVeSport Cd1 4/2/2012

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve P on April 2, 2012 at 10:25

very interesting case.  It clearly could have gone either way.  Interesting that both the majority opinion and the dissent cite the same prior case for their position.  There is scant reference to the unitization hearing, which is where the mineral owner had their best chance to learn of the unit well.  Of course, if the MO has moved out of the parish, perhaps there was no actual "notice" to that MO.  Land owners are on the tax rolls, so it is possible to send notice to them.  Here (and I am guessing), the unit opertor failed to catch the outstanding mineral servitude, so the MO missed out on her best opportunity to discover the production of the unit well.  At a minimum, this was a title bust for someone doing a division order title opinion on that unit.  If the defendants had put forth some evidence (and I understand that they took the position that they had no burden of proof) that an effort had been made during the unitization process that an attempt had been made to locate Ms. Wells, then this case may have had a different outcome.

 

Unleased mineral owners would rely on this decision at their peril.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on April 3, 2012 at 4:17

Steve P,

Agreed.  However, how many thousands of mineral estates...just in Louisiana...aren't receiving $$$ because propert "notice" has not been received...whatever the justification? 

I know of three individuals who have P.O. Boxes and never received "notification," and would not have had a clue as to their properties' inclusion in a pooled unit... if not for "word of mouth" information.   They are Seniors and have never had their properties under lease.  Two are in nursing homes. 

I agree, today, the "process" is much more efficient.  But the duty to inform, IMO, is strictly set out in the LA codes. 

  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew on April 3, 2012 at 8:08

In this case the Plaintiff's late mother got the servitude by a community property settlement with her former husband where each got an undivided 1/2 of the servitude (itself a undivided 1/2 of 120 acres). What's odd is that the former husband's 1/2 interest was accounted for, but the sister 1/2 that belonged to Well's mother (a net 30 mineral acres) was not leased, nor was it force pooled as non-consent mineral ownership. Appears to be simply erroneous land work, where the community property settlement was missed and no one asked questions about Mr. Wells's change in marital status in the title records.

The opinion is fundamentally correct, but narrow. Whether it is "reasonable" for a mineral owner to not be aware of production is very fact-sensitive, and depends on how experienced the mineral owner is in these matters. Perhaps if Mrs. Wells was a regular on GHS it would have been different...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on April 3, 2012 at 9:32

Andrew,

Agreed. 

However, if Ms. Wells was of the age of My Parents...Like many LA mineral owners are...  GHS would not be of use to them.  My Parents never learned how to use a computer, internet, e-mail, instant messaging, facebook, etc.  On-line anything scares them to death.    My Parents don't use a debt card, credit card, and don't access ATMs. 

They still write a check, and they like their "paper" documents.  ...  LOL

Had it not been that My Parents and I are pretty much neighbors, My Parents would not have had a clue as to the HS or their mineral rights.  They never have leased any land either. 

Reading a newspaper about the HS was just that to them... A news story.  It never crossed their minds that they might have a "stake" in the HS.

I count My Parents as intelligent and experienced Individuals.  But at their ages, their lives revolve around doctor visits, occasional dinners out, and re-runs of old B&W movies on TNT and Cable Sports Channels.  LOL

They are good people.  And, as Ms. Wells...  The Courts must recognize and address/protect those who may not be as "aware" as we are.  IMHO.

DrWAVeSport  Cd1 4/3/2012 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew on April 3, 2012 at 9:43

Agreed. The remark about GHS was tongue-in-cheek, since the site didn't exist at the time anyway. The court was wise to recognize that a single, working-class mother would not be aware of mineral production when she lived in another parish, didn't own the surface above the minerals, the well wasn't even on that tract, and she never received any checks or division orders. Something has to put a person on notice that some investigation is in order. Otherwise, operators would be free to keep the mineral owner, avoid having to pay royalties or bonuses, and hope they don't get wise within 10 years. 

That said, this case is a perfect example of why it would be wise to make a Land Book like the one Henry wrote about here http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/my-land-book.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GoshDarn on April 3, 2012 at 9:59

Andrew, I've always wondered if "objective" lawyers actually think that our justice system is truly fair or if, per an arms-length POV . . . they, in fact, think the courts are rigged per those with the most money to buy the best minds to argue in front of the judges?

Yet, the keyword is "objective" -- I guess.  Seems kinda unsettling that the legal system to protect our citizenry, can be, at times, circumvented by the power of vast sums of money (i.e., deep pockets which can thus engage the best hired-gun attorneys) -- whereas the little guy can barely afford to pay the lawyer bill for competent representation .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew on April 3, 2012 at 18:29

I'm not a lawyer, but I can say that is a whole other conversation. I don't know that I would characterize Zadeck as a "big money" interest, but Wells was definitely the little guy. Regardless of those categorizations, I think that operators should notify and compensate mineral owners for production, just as non-consent mineral owners should pay their proportion of production costs in order to share in the proceeds.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on April 4, 2012 at 4:20

GoshDarn,

I often believe that with "objective" lawyers, it comes down to their "own" cost-benefit analysis.  There are a few that take on the "its the principle, moral, ethical" cases, including the Public Defenders out there...but most IMO belong to firms that decide by the term "Show Me The Money," or "Show Me The Headlines." 

Believe me,  We are involved in a case now that is sitting on needles and pins... 

Who are the Laws there to Protect?  The innocent?  ????

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply