Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by SBossierGuy on July 19, 2008 at 4:33

I think I found the answer: yes it is permissable under LA RS 9:2971. See below

RS 9:2971. Presumption of grant of all interest; exceptions

It shall be conclusively presumed that any transfer, conveyance, surface lease, mineral lease, mortgage or any other contract, or grant affecting land described as fronting on or bounded by, or as described pursuant to a survey or using a metes and bounds description that shows that it actually fronts on or is bounded by a waterway, canal, highway, road, street, alley, railroad, or other right-of-way, shall be held, deemed and construed to include all of grantor's interest in and under such waterway, canal, highway, road, street, alley, railroad, or other right-of-way, whatever that interest may be, in the absence of any express provision therein particularly excluding the same therefrom; provided, that where the grantor at the time of the transfer or other grant holds as owner the title to the fee of the land situated on both sides thereof and makes a transfer or other grant affecting the land situated on only one side thereof, it shall then be conclusively presumed, in the absence of any express provision therein particularly excluding the same therefrom, that the transfer or other such grant thereof shall include the grantor's interest to the center of such waterway, canal, highway, road, street, alley, railroad, or other right-of-way; provided further, however, that no then existing valid right-of-way upon, across or over said property so transferred or conveyed or so presumed to be conveyed and no warranties with respect thereto shall be in any manner or to any extent impaired, prejudiced, or otherwise affected by any of the terms and provisions of this Part or because of the failure of such grantor or transferror to therein make special reference to such right-of-way or to include or exclude same therefrom.

I believe that says that if a land owner owns both sides of a waterway or street, then he is entitled to the minerals under it. If the owner A owns one side and owner B owns the other side, then they split the minerals down the middle.

PLEASE ASK A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ABOUT THIS!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Har C2 on July 19, 2008 at 5:36

I would think a surveyor would have to determine your property line because an easement does not necessarily always run with the center line of the road. It would be worth the expense of hiring a surveyor. I think you would be surprised how the square footage down a road adds up.

The old 1970's song, money....money.....mon-n-ney, money! comes to mind.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dena A1 on July 19, 2008 at 15:34

Hi Har C2: I had a survey and it shows 6' easement on the paper. I do not know is this indicating that is mine or that it is just stateing that that is where it is. It shows the property line and then a shows an arrow that says 6' easement. I will find out in the end I am sure. I as I stated before just wanted to post this to get people to think about looking into this for themselves. Thanks again Dena

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dena A1 on July 19, 2008 at 15:28

Hi SBossierGuy: Thanks for the info. I will retain this info, and I am sure that it is going to help others that are wondering the same thing. I think it is something to look into, and can make a difference in the long run. Dena

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Har C2 on July 19, 2008 at 5:25

An easement is the right to use the land of another. So the easement should not affect your interest in the land (i.e., mineral rights underneath) it should just limit what you can do on the surface, though. You still own everything underneath an easement running over, on and across your property.

There are all sorts of easements.

If you own a tract of land (Lot A) and your neighbor accesses his land (Lot Z) via a road that runs across your land (Lot A), Lot A serves Lot Z.

Lot A is known as the Servient Estate or Servient Tenement (because is serves Lot Z).

Lot Z is known as the Dominant Estate or Dominant Tenement.

There may be other terms for this in Louisiana. (ask a lawyer)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dena A1 on July 19, 2008 at 15:25

HI Har C2: Thanks for the info. Yes, if and when I lease, and they do not count the easement I will look into it further. There is alot of grey area about that subject. The court house in Minden told me to let the O&G figure that out, instead of spending any money on finding out on my own. I thought I would just post this question and what I know so far to get people thinking in that direction also. You are right it is worth asking about and can make a difference in the long run. Dena

• ▶ Reply