landowner

LA question - recommended I post here....

So the deed says -

 

Vendor does, by these presents, grant, bargain, sell, convey, transfer, assign, set over, abandon and deliver, with all legal warranties and with full substitution and subrogation in and to all the rights and actions of warranty which vendors have or may have against all preceding owners and vendors, unto: 

 

hereinafter referred to as Vendee, here present accepting, and purchasing for vendee, and vendees successors, heirs and assigns, and acknowledging due delivery thereof, all and singular the following described property to wit:

 

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above described property unto the said Vendee and Vendee's successors, heirs and assigns forever.

 

Then a few paragraphs down we have - 

 

Vendor retains one-half of the minerals.

 

Is this language sufficient to create a mineral servitude? Or is it ambiguous and construed in favor of the land owner?

 

Thanks in advance for your advice!

Views: 61

Replies to This Discussion


Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Ben Elmore on April 8, 2011 at 4:17
Assuming the Vendor owned 100% of the minerals at the time of the deed, the language "Vendor retains one-half of the minerals" results in full title to one-half of the minerals in the vendor, and full title to the other half in the vendee.

landownerPermalink Reply by adubu on April 12, 2011 at 13:45
Ben--If Vendor owned only 1/2 then did Vendor retain the 1/2 he owned and Vendee has none?

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Ben Elmore on April 13, 2011 at 2:43
Not if the granting clause is a general conveyance of the entire estate, because that would trigger Duhig.  In that instance, the vendor's reservation fails in order to make the vendee whole (or as whole as possible).

RSS

© 2026   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service