Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by P.G. on January 1, 2009 at 5:43

Sounds like it!
It was more than 10 years since the minerals were reserved. If there's no production within 10 years, they revert back to the owner I would assume.
Isn't partitioning just like an act of sale? Ownership changes because of it, right?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on January 1, 2009 at 11:46

Ken:

There would be no question that the partition created a servitude. Being that the land is non-contiguous (per your statement), actually two separate servitudes have been created (as single servitudes cannot exist over non-contiguous tracts of land).

Couple of questions:

As to the producing property (120 acres):

What is the nature of the production holding this acreage? Is there a producing well (or are there producing wells) on this tract, or is this acreage pooled with other acreage upon which a well has been drilled? If the property is merely pooled with other producing acreage upon which the well(s) has/have been drilled, are all 120 acres pooled therein, or only a portion?

As to the non-contiguous, non-producing property (40 acres):

Has any well (dry hole or otherwise) been drilled on the property or on lands pooled therewith at any time following the 1993 partition?

As a side note: if the intent of the sisters is to maintain the ownership of the minerals equally and in indivision, they may always contract same in a timely manner (by filing an acknowledgement of interruption of prescription prior to the extinguishment of the mineral servitude) or at any time after said prescription by conveyance of minerals by your aunt to your mother, reserving an undivided one-half of the whole of the minerals in and to the property, with an acknowledgement of intent between the parties that each sister is to own an undivided one-half of the minerals in, on and under the subject property.

Neither a partition nor any other conveyance can, in or of itself, prevent the running of prescription on servitude tracts, nor can either of the parties to an act creating a mineral servitude enforce a provision or mandate that either (1) suspends the running of prescription, or (2) mandate a purchasing party (or their successor(s)) to file instruments interrupting the running of prescription. Parties can voluntarily contract to maintain mineral ownership in any way they wish at any time, including acts of acknowledgement of interruption of prescription.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken Knight on January 1, 2009 at 14:07

Dion:

I don't want to complicate things, but let me give you a few more details...

All the land my mother and her sister inherited is under a 99-year timber lease that expires about 2050. However, my grandfather reserved the mineral rights for the property and we have the right to drill on it.

My mother, who passed away last February, gave me her 80 acres in Section 1 and mineral interests (royalties) about four years ago.

My mother and her sister signed a lease without a Pugh clause in 1975 on their undivided property that included 100 acres in Section 1 and 25 acres in Section 2. A well was drilled in Section 1 on someone else's property in 1976 and a well was drilled on someone else's property in Section 2 in 1978. A new well was drilled on my 80 acres of property in Section 1 in 2005. I receive a little royalty from all three wells, which are in the Hosston zone and don't produce much after 30+ years of production.

When the original well in Section 1 shut down several years ago for a couple of years, the production from the well in Section 2 with the 25 acres prevented me from signing a new lease with a better royalty rate like the neighbors did. The original well was put back into production again.

This is strange, but my mother's and aunt's 180 acres were identically partitioned twice...first in 1993 and then again in 1999. The same lawyer did both partitions and no one seemed to realize that the land had already been partitioned in 1993. So I guess the 10-year prescription began with the original 1993 partition.

Both partitions say: "Each party, as part of the consideration of this partition, reserves all mineral interest, rights, leases, or royalties presently in existence at the time of this partition, it being the intention of the parties that all existing leases, agreements, royalty deeds and interests remain the property of the party presently receiving those royalties, etc."

After the 1999 partition, my aunt sold her property in Section 1, 2, and the 40 non-producing acres to someone else. The person who bought her land leased the 40 acres in 2005 since I assume my 10-year prescription on the 40 acres had run out based on the 1993 partition. My aunt had already sold her mineral interests in Section 1 in 1976 to the one of the working interest owners drilling the original well.

I hope this isn't too confusing.
Ken

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on January 2, 2009 at 6:34

Ken:

Not terribly confusing, but what you are asking would probably warrant examination of the documents themselves.

Depending upon how the partitions (both of them) were worded, it could very well be that the 1999 partition created a novation of the 1993 partition, at which point, the second partition "repartitioned" the property. Both parties owned all rights in the properties and signed the second agreement as well (I would assume), thus (although debatable), a new mineral servitude would have been created (since most partitions say something to the effect of 'we own all of this in indivision, we don't want to own this in indivision anymore, thus A conveys all they have in X property to B, which B accepts, and B conveys all they have in Y property to A, which A accepts, we declare that minerals are to be held in indivision from this day forward)

The pre-partition mineral sale of your mother in 1976 perplexes me, in that as long as the mineral servitude created by that sale is in effect, these minerals would not be available in the partition. Again, a full examination of the chain of title, alongside a mineral history, by an oil and gas attorney would be warranted to give you a full opinion as to what happened.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken Knight on January 2, 2009 at 20:01

Dion:

Thanks again for your reply. It was my mother's sister who signed a royalty deed to one of the oil companies drilling the well for her one-half interests (1/16th royalty---1/2 of 1/8th) in Section 1 and 2 on May 8, 1977. The original well shows a completion date of July 22, 1977, even though the first production recorded on Sonris is March 1, 1979. No doubt the oil company knew what they had found and my aunt was willing to take a lump sum payment without waiting for the well to produce. Of course, my aunt would have made several times that amount over the past 30+ years if she had waited for monthly royalty checks.

Your wording on the partition documents is very similar to the wording in the 1993 and 1999 documents.

I wanted to explore the question about the two different partitions of the same property with an oil and gas attorney several years ago. I was curious how the two partitions would effect the 10-year servitude, particularly because I was within the 10 years of the 1999 partition (and probably still am.) But I ran into the problem of attorneys I called saying that they would have a conflict of interest speaking to me because they represented major oil companies.

If someone knows of a north Louisiana O&G attorney that represents land owners, I would appreciate their name so I could call them about this property. I have copies of all the documents at the Jackson Parish courthouse relating to the property: 99-year timber leases, mineral leases, partitions, royalty deeds and property sales.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by insomniacnla on January 3, 2009 at 13:30

Randal Davidson and Ryan Gatti both are attorneys that handle o/g work on behalf of landowners. There are several other threads on this site concerning referrals to attorneys. If you do not find the threads listing the attorneys and their contact information, just let me know and I will find a link for you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken Knight on January 3, 2009 at 17:16

Thanks for the information. I found both of their phone numbers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on January 3, 2009 at 19:50

Ken:

I am relieved (I guess from a title perspective) as to the sale being a royalty sale versus a mineral sale. Since most partitions involve an equal division of property, a sale of the minerals out of the partition property could have possibly scuttled the intent of the partition in the first place.

The issues surrounding the 1993 and 1999 partitions definitely merit legal examination as to what residual rights you have in these properties. Particularly, the articles pertaining to the filing and construction of an interruption of prescription by acknowledgement are fairly well spelled out, however, the intent of the parties would weigh in any subsequent legal judgment as to the effect of instruments which create a servitude. Thus, the "repartition" of the property and acknowledgement of ownership of minerals in indivision may not be the strict constructs of the articles of the Mineral Code, but the effect(s) could amount to as much as an acknowledgement and interruption. Now that the minerals have been severed from the surface (some of the properties now being conveyed outside of your family), and given the weight of the consequences, I do not advise you to seek legal counsel lightly.

I hope at the very least I have at been able to point out the key issues you would wish to have resolved going forward. Hope this has been of some help.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken Knight on January 4, 2009 at 9:19

Dion:

Thanks again for your insightful information and reply. I will call an O&G attorney tomorrow to discuss the partitions.

I'm also having a Shreveport geologist look at my well log from 2005. The company that drilled the well on my property was only looking for Cotton Valley production below the old Hosston producing zone and said it wasn't there. However, I'm curious if there may be other possible gas formations or shale to be found in the 16,000' well in southern Jackson Parish. I obtained the well log from Sonris, but wish I knew how to obtain the mud log from the drilling for someone to look at.

• ▶ Reply