Know Your Rights - Texas Mineral Law

Dear Ben,

 

Beg Pardon.  The Pool Case.  I do not know where my mind was.  I was thinking Pool and typed Parks.

 

NGPL v Pool 124 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. 2003).

 

To me it was a bewildering decision on the application of adverse possession to severed mineral interests.

 

What I got out of the case was that if there was a lease in place and you paid royalties, even though the lease had terminated, you in effect had adversely possessed the leasehold estate rather than the mineral estate.

 

Is that about right?

 

Thanks,

 

Buddy

 

I am sure there are some progeny cases out there as well

Sorry Buddy, I have been on vacation.  That is correct.  Thought the court did not specifically say this, by continuing to pay royalty, the oil company was limited to adverse possession of the leasehold estate.  If the company produced the wells and never paid royalty for the applicable limitaitons period, they would have been able to claim adverse possession of the entire mineral estate.  In reality, the adverse possession was raised only as an alternative defense to the lessors' claim that the lease terminated; i.e., the company's primary argument was the lease did not actually terminate, but even if it had, the company had nevertheless adversely possessed the leasehold estate. 

Alert: Texas mineral owners need to contact your State Representatives and Senators now and tell them to OPPOSE HB 100 Ns the identical companion SB 136. These Forced Pooling bills restrict your rights in leasing and controlling your mineral rights. Please review:http://www.tlma.org/legislative.htm for more information. Please take action NOW. HB100 is up for a committee hearing on Wednesday March 13 in House Energy Resources Committee.