Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Big Daddy, bcnr on October 5, 2008 at 8:00

KB, Perhaps Sharon Taylor having registered 3x w/ GHS, used the same email address on each account. So she might be getting 3 emails for every reply. I could see how that would be annoying. Perhaps she needs to delete some of the AKA's and change her setings.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on October 5, 2008 at 8:49

The main factor Sharon is you are on the very fringe of the southern part of the play, it will take a good while for things to heat up again, depending on Gas prices, we are trying on this site to help poeple like you, I hate to say it and this is not meant in a mean way but its pretty obvious that you dont have a clue about whats going on. Depending on how much property you have you could wind up throwing away a fortune, If you have got to have money now, I would do about anything I could to get it other than sell your mineral rights, coming out with a post like you did is like throwing a bloody steak into a shark tank, I can promise you they will eat alive in a heartbeat. Take a deep breath and take our advice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sharon Taylor on October 6, 2008 at 15:04

I agree with your comment. It will take a long time before things heat up again. I am only trying to do what my mother wants me to do while she is still alive.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on October 5, 2008 at 13:44

"A grant of a profit is to be distinguished from a mineral severance because the grantee purchases the entire strata underneath the land.It is an outright sale of the minerals in place.It does not cease by lapse of time.It is accompanied by an irrevocable easement to remove".

This was taken out of the ALM by C.A. Morgan and may not apply to La Mineral law.
Does mineral severance last longer then the 10 year period ? If not what would the purpose be for buying the minerals vs. leasing ? Thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on October 5, 2008 at 13:53

Louisiana has taken great care in crafting laws that are based in the Nepolianic thought that no one has or could hold something forever. Common law is different than Louisiana law but you do see common law sneeking its way in. I am not a lawyer, this is only my opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 5, 2008 at 14:14

de nada, I have dealt with the expropriation of surface right question lately and wonder if you know how far back that the practice of excluding the mineral estate from the surface use expropriation, or donation, extends. Some conveyance documents from past expropriation/donation documents reference reservation of minerals and some do not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grice on October 5, 2008 at 14:38

"If no production within the ten years to interrupt it, the mineral servitude is lost."

Actual production would not need be determined. A good faith attempt to reach production within the 10 years, would result in an interruption of the non-use prescription, therefore renewing the terms in which non-use prescription would expire.

While I am not attempting to dispute what you have stated, I do wish to add a clarification.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on October 5, 2008 at 14:48

A tax sale would give the state minerals if not reclaimed in the prescriped period, stated or not from 1921.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on October 5, 2008 at 15:24

From my understanding the State of Louisiana does not have to state that they are reserving minerals in patents that happen after 1921. If you lose to a tax sale and don't redeem in the persciptive period and the state sells or patents out then the state retains the minerals.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on October 5, 2008 at 15:25

Thanks guy's and gal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 5, 2008 at 15:29

Just for clarification, the conveyance I reference above is not a tax sale. And is not a creation of a separate mineral servitude. It is, IMO, a "taking" as Jim styles it. My original question concerned "taking" by the state of LA. or a municipal subdivision thereof was, must the conveyance document, expropriation or donation, contain language specific to the reservation of the mineral estate or does law recognize an imprescriptable right of the mineral owner after loss of the surface lacking such language?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 6, 2008 at 1:40

de nada, do you know when the "current law" became affective? And what was the law prior to that time?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page