Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on April 19, 2009 at 11:40

The gas company doens't have to record the lease but they have to at least record a memorandum of lease. The memorandum doesn't give the specifics of the lease, but gives enough information to let "the public" know that a lease has been issued.

Louisiana is a "race" state. In other words, who ever makes it to the courthouse first to record an instrument(lease, deed, mortgage, etc.) wins. The first to be recorded is the only one that counts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on April 19, 2009 at 11:43

In other words, if I sell a piece of property in 1985 and the buyer doesn't record the deed and I sell it again in 2009 and the more recent buyer records their deed, the 2009 buyer would be the VALID buyer. Of course, the 1985 buyer will turn around and sue me for fraud, but the recent buyer is the owner of the house.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. I don't even play one on TV.

Disclaimer 2: Disclaimer one was an attempt at humor.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 19, 2009 at 12:26

And a darn good one, parker. LOL!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tommy Munds on April 19, 2009 at 14:03

Thanks, parker, for your replies. I will now try to explain my reason for wanting to know. Our home with 3+ acres is in the east half sec. 27 T16N R15W. When the leasing started with the landmen going door to door in the neighborhood, some of the property owners signed leases and some did not. I was one who did not sign. The first reason I did not is that I am one who will not rush into money issues with out knowing all the facts. When we started checking the facts it came to light that the State of La. is claiming the mineral rights to the entire half section [ 320 acres]. Some in the neighborhood formed a group to look into the issue. Many in the neighborhood had Mineral Rights spellled out in their deeds. When checking the court house records, there were no records that stated the state had the minerals. We found that the state entered into a lease of our minerals on two occasions since 2000. [ Do not have the exact dates in front of me]. So, with your answer I wonder why the state does not have to record anything? We are working to get this resolved, but with the state , we are having no luck. We have tried to get meetings with the governors office and the Lt. governors office. Both have ignored our requests. [ So much for Gov. Jindal going to do the right thing when he campaigned]. He even has on his web site a form to fill out for a meeting. Did that, and all we got was a call checking the information we supplied. All of this was months ago, so we have given him plenty of time to respond. We are told to contact our leglislators, which we have done. They told us we needed to seek legal counsel. Sure you can seek legal counsel, if you can come up with the money. Why can you not settle issues with face to face meetings, without legal counsel having to file lawsuits. Sorry , parker if I am rambling. Will close with this; Our issue is with the state is very unique. This 320 acres was not lost for back taxes, it was not wetlands. There was a law passed in the early 1920's, we do not know why, that authorized the state to sell the 320 to two men. Why do you have to pass a law to sell property? I will stop with this unless someone wants to know more of the story. Thanks again for your answer to my original question. This is a very good site for getting info, I thank any who have a hand in this site, keep up the good work

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on April 20, 2009 at 3:51

Correct me or not Jim, but doesn't all land transfered from the state after 1921 take place without the minerals?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Festus on April 20, 2009 at 3:58

The State of Louisiana is constitutionally barred from divesting minerals. This provision was in the 1921 constitution and in the 1973 constitution. It also prohibits parishes and cities as well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on April 20, 2009 at 4:28

Tommy,

This was discussed at length before on this site. You might want to try searhing previous posts.

At any rate, you are most likely out of luck.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on April 20, 2009 at 5:24

Its the modern day view that people are entitiled to things they are really not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tommy Munds on April 20, 2009 at 13:11

Thanks to all who posted constructive replies. I did not post this as a baited question and I do not have the view that I am entitled to things which are not really mine. Have a great day. Tommy Munds

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ms.Dragonslaya on April 20, 2009 at 13:48

I think you had a legitimate question as there are fee simple estates where people own the surface rights and what is below the ground rights.

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on April 21, 2009 at 3:22

Good grief.

Are we still talking about this?