Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on December 11, 2008 at 17:08

I can't see where a mortgage would hinder the operator in a force pooled situation.

If the property were foreclosed, the new owner would be entitled to the revenue. IMHO.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on December 11, 2008 at 17:12

if a tract is unitized, and is unleased, there is no lease to subordinate.

The money (revenue-expenses) will be sent to the mineral owner.

That is not to say that the landowner will not be violating terms of the mortgage. This will be a matter between the lendor and lendee.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bandit, UMO on December 11, 2008 at 17:25

I had not thought of it like that... there is no lease to subordinate. Thanks.

But I don't understand the part about violating terms of mortgage. If one is unleased and force pooled, then he would be forced to participate unvoluntarily.... how could he be held responsible for that?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on December 11, 2008 at 17:31

If the property is encumbered by a mortgage...And revenue is derived from the property...The lendor could make claim to this revenue and require it be applied to the loan principle.

All this would depend on the loans terms.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bandit, UMO on December 11, 2008 at 17:41

That's interesting.... So, Are you saying they can get the revenue in addition to my mortgage payment??? Or only if one default's on their mortgage???

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on December 11, 2008 at 17:52

It would depend on the terms of your loan...

I am not a lawyer..I am not a mortgage expert. I am just saying that taking mineral revenue from a mortgaged property could involve the mortgae co.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on December 12, 2008 at 4:29

I agree with you KB, but could a lendor make a claim on revenue derived from production on an unleased tract?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on December 12, 2008 at 5:08

A lendor can make demands on a property owner that rents a home, usually in the form of increased insurance. I am not saying that every lendor could make a claim on mineral proceeds, but in todays finacial world with complex mortgage documents it could be possible that they could make a claim on that money. Personally, If I was a lenderI would not, I would rather the loan be paid over its natural length so i could make my interest money, but today many banks need cash.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on December 12, 2008 at 6:13

Not always true Jim. Many times a lendor will require the owner to carry additional liability insurance.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on December 12, 2008 at 6:14

As i said, It all depnds on the terms of the loan.

Permalink Reply by Bandit, UMO on December 11, 2008 at 17:54

I think I'm beginning to understand. :) The O&G companies don't want to be forced to renegotiate terms for a leased property that they previously negotiated.... which could potentially result in substantially different terms than the original lease. Thanks!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on December 11, 2008 at 17:55

So the subordination is for the benefit of the oil company lessee, not the mineral owner?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page