Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 16, 2010 at 2:33

The mineral rights were conveyed along with the surface in the deed. This language just states that the new owner is bound by the terms of the lease in force at the time of the sale. Were surface to be sold but not the underlying minerals, there would be specific language "reserving" those rights which would create a mineral servitude.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on June 16, 2010 at 4:43

Is that the actual wording? Does it say "mineral RIGHTS", not "mineral GRANTS?" Mine said "Subject to any restrictions, easements, or servitudes of record and any mineral grants, leases, or reservations of record."

Is this Louisiana? What state?

Skip is probably right. You probably don't own any mineral rights or get any royalties unless you specifically reserved them when you sold the property.

The clause you quoted mainly protects the rights of Chesapeake or anyone other than you, the seller, who had legal rights to the property. There would probably be a separate clause like "100% of mineral rights are reserved by Vendor...." if you still owned anything.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 16, 2010 at 4:48

Conveyances by deed may reserve minerals in whole or in a fractional part. The language uses the specific term "reserves".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wayne Lee Parker on June 16, 2010 at 5:37

It says "mineral rights. The state is Louisiana. I did not think that was sufficent language to retain the mineral rights but I was not sure, thanks for your help. I was a little surpised that Chesapeake sent me a shut in check. I have not been able to get Chesapeake to return my calls. I will just call the new owner and let him contact them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by amigo1 on June 17, 2010 at 2:59

I went through a divorce in Texas and I bought out my husband. There was a special warranty deed that he had to sign to give me the rights of to the mineral rights. The attorney that handled the divorce did this. The language was confusing to me on the special waranty deed. I am sorry but most languages are confusing when dealing with an attorney. I just wish they would stop the strange wordings and put it in plan English.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on June 17, 2010 at 5:28

amigo1, I feel your pain. However, cases have hinged on the context in which a few words are used within a document and their subsequent interpretation within that context. That is why we pay lawyers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DJG on June 17, 2010 at 5:36

Agreed, that situation is an example of why you would WANT an attorney to draft the wording. Too much riding on the outcome for any of the wording to not be specific.

• ▶ Reply