Who owns the mineral rights?
Scenario: Madame X owns 100% of the surface rights and 33.% of the mineral rights on a 65.2 acre tract. The surface and minerals were originally part of a larger tract (195.6 acres) that 3 siblings shared an equal undivided interest in (1/3 each). The property was then partitioned with each member receiving separate surface tracts and the minerals were reserved by each party, giving them each a 1/3 mineral interest in the entire tract and separate surface estates. Okay, the next year, Madame X sell her 65.2 acres and it has the following language after the property description:
LESS AND EXCEPT one-half of the OGM occurring in liquid or gaseous form under said property.
This sale covers and includes an undivided 1/2 interest in and to ALL of the OGM on and under the above described property, and, additionally, covers and includes one-half of all royalties, benefits and payments allocated to that 1/2 interest, lessees are authorized to pay (Vendee) all such payments and royalties allocable to conveyed 1/2 interest.
My first time reading the language I thought she was trying to reserve 1/2 of her undivided 1/3 interest in and to the mineral estate. After further thought, I think she unintentionally granted all of her interest. She conveyed 1/2 of ALL OGM but only owned 1/3 of all. If the deed would have ended after the LESS AND EXCEPT, then she would have reserved her interest. What is your interpretation of the language?
LESS AND EXCEPT one-half of the OGM occurring in liquid or gaseous form under said property.
This sale covers and includes an undivided 1/2 interest in and to ALL of the OGM on and under the above described property, and, additionally, covers and includes one-half of all royalties, benefits and payments allocated to that 1/2 interest, lessees are authorized to pay (Vendee) all such payments and royalties allocable to conveyed 1/2 interest.
My first time reading the language I thought she was trying to reserve 1/2 of her undivided 1/3 interest in and to the mineral estate. After further thought, I think she unintentionally granted all of her interest. She conveyed 1/2 of ALL OGM but only owned 1/3 of all. If the deed would have ended after the LESS AND EXCEPT, then she would have reserved her interest. What is your interpretation of the language?
Views: 31
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ELLIS HUGH on
-
The partition (creation of the mineral servitude) was done in January 2003 and the sale of the 65.2 surface acres occured in January 2004. Sorry, I should have specified the dates.
-
-
Thanks for your input. The property was conveyed using a warranty deed, so the Duhig rule applies. The vendor signed a mineral lease after the sale and there is a producing natural gas well on the property, as well as, a recently permitted well. I did not complete the title on the tract or speak with any of the owners, but I think I will find a correction filed in reference to this sale. I'm glad I asked. I new of the Duhig rule, just forgot it by name. Thanks for the info.
-
-
They leased her for the entire 195.6 acres. She did not sell her interest under the remaining acreage. The well location is not on any of the family property. I think the landman assumed she reserved 1/2 of her mineral interest, as opposed to 1/2 of all OGM. This is the only explanation I have for her being leased, unless she acquired some interest elsewhere that I did not see (I did not run complete title). After confirming title, I may contact "madame X" and found out if she received a RDO from the operator. Or I will just steer clear of this property, it seems it may not be worth the time to deal with. Thanks again for the help.
-
Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on -
There are holes in Duhig, be careful.
-
Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on
-
Amen
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Blog Posts
Tuscaloosa Trend Sits On Top Of Poorest Neighbourhood For Decades - Yet No Royalties Ever Paid To The Community -- Why??
In researching the decades-old Tuscaloosa Trend and the immense wealth it has generated for many, I find it deeply troubling that this resource-rich formation runs directly beneath one of the poorest communities in North Baton Rouge—near Southern University, Louisiana—yet neither the university ( that I am aware of) nor local residents appear to have received any compensation for the minerals extracted from their land.
This area has suffered immense environmental degradation…
ContinueNot a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
Fayetteville Shale
151 members
-
Franklin County, Texas
10 members
-
DeSoto Parish
688 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
246 members
-
North Caddo Parish
359 members
-
Cass County, TX
121 members
-
Nacogdoches County
193 members
-
Claiborne Parish
146 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Rapides Parish
101 members
© 2025 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
