Hi, inherited 150-190 acres of which EQT payed me $2500/acre for 4.4 acres. they believe they should pay me 1/2 mineral royalties, but because of some appellate case they need a quiet deed or declaratory action presented to them first. I found handwritten deed describing the agreement for “1/16th of all oil and gas”. Payment was $600 dollars…according to most estimates this is equal to $20,000 in todays money. Seems to me obvious that great granddad didn’t pay that for only 1/16 interest. Apparently intermediate appellate court overruled a lower court and doesn’t want to take into account terms and phrases used at that time. Is there any progress on further clarification in West Virginia courts anyone know of? Appreciate it, thanx The deed is 1891 in Wetzal county WV.
Your question(s) are a bit confusing. Did grandad buy the surface and minerals? Did you inherit the full150-90 acres of surface and 4.4 acres of minerals or did you just sell off 4.4 acres and kept the other 145-185 mineral acres? Unless great grand dad, then grand dad and then dad had only 1 kid each, mathmatically thats next to impossible that you get all the surface and only 4.4 acres of minerals unless they sold off a ton of minerals, which given the activity in the area the last 100 years, is highly unlikely. But, at the time 1/8th meant 100% minerals, so 1/16ths would be 1/2. I have no idea what the courts ruled or will rule on the matter, but you said that they paid you, meaning the money is already deposited on the 4.4 acres and now, after they paid you, they came back and said it should only be for 2.2 acres?
Our family has the same issue, original agreements with ridiculous payments are still in force today and has been over 100 years.
Thanks Bob, I inherited my share of around 150 acres…EQT deemed I should recieve bonus paym16thent of $2500 per acre, which they have paid. Then one of their landman sent a email to 10 of us. Said EQT thinks we deserve 1/2 mineral rights portion. Apparently original 1891 deed used the prevalent terms of 1/16th of all oil and gas in reference to the standard 12.5% royalty or 1/8th to represent ALL of mineral rights. There was a court case, Nicholson vs Serverin, that circuit court ruled that it was obviously customary to use 1/16th to represent 1/2 of standard royalty. Was in use for several decades. Then last Feb, 2024 a w.virgina intermediate appeals court ruled the opposite. I viewed online the actual oral arguments. Opposing lawyer argued the “four corners” approach. What’s inside 4 corners of paper of paper has to be understood to only mean exactly what it says. If it says 1/16th, then we have to construe it to mean only 1/16th, nothing else. So instead of being able to say, sell my 4.4 acre share for about $25,000, it would be maybe 3k or so…So I’m looking for answers that anyone may have stumbled into same conundrum . I would get Attorney along with as many of other 10 people involved if I though we would prevail…worth it if we do. But at lower number if we lose, doesn’t make sense. Help
This is going to be a sticky situation a I would recommend a O&G lawyer review the full situation as it is hard to convey the depth of it all in a forum. I’m aware of Kyle Nuttall in Buckhannon. He is a great lawyer for O&G and ONLY works with individuals. He will not represent companies as he wants the best for his clients. I’m not affiliated with him in any way, just aware of his work.
Thanks Nick…afraid you are right…Just seems incomprehensible that after 134 years and what must be thousands of deeds and leases written with this exact language, a court buys the argument that common understanding at that time is somehow confusing to present and future cases. Maybe WV supreme court will over rule appeals court, hoping something on courts calender.
I dont keep up to date on West Virginia law, so I have no idea if the appeals court ruling is currently being challenged or not, but as of now, it would be pointless to hire an attorney to argue with the company about it if if the appeals court ruled in favor in 2024 unless you want to spend years battling it in courts. Good luck sir
Thanks for replies. Guess my question for forum is has anyone else dealt with this issue and have first hand insight into how it is playing out in courts in WV. The appellate case was a year ago and I imagine this would affect many 1900’s type deeds. Anyone with a deed referring to a 1/16th as half of an 1/8 would be affected and should/would have a interest. This would seem to me to be big, big deal for thousands of leases and deeds and there would be great interest by parties with any potential inheritance. Case apparently has ramifications in Pennsylvania and Ohio I believe too.
At present this is the prevailing decision, which is the bad news. The good news, there are many producers that just had a significant portion of their leasehold reduced. Have you asked EQT if they are going to challenge the decision in order to substantiate their leasehold?
Im not sure about EQT and West Virginia but I own some interests in Ohio and Pennslyvania that I bought on a whim for very cheap 10 years ago, so have followed the area somewhat closely. From my understanding, the majority of the major operators, have had money held in suspense for the grantor/reserving party and their heirs from the reservation language used around 1900-1920. The problem is, the grantors that made the reservation rarely appear in title again unless it stays in the same family, so the companies are basically left to build a 100 year old family tree which takes quite a bit of time to figure out whom to pay on that 1/2 interest.
Early in my career I did quite a bit of work for a family owned mineral company that had properties in NW PA. I acquired the company later. The title issues were immense, bad tax sales, and ghosts throughout the titles. We had to weigh the value of QTA’s, creative curatives, and patience. When the big gas plays started, landmen were leasing off tax rolls to my surprise. They just wanted color of title.
That’s who I would recommend to helped me on a few things to the good side
Is there a well on that that was drilled in 1891 or after still producing hasn’t been plugged
Not sure what happened on property…don’t live in WV…mother got a small royalty starting 30 years ago, but that stopped about 10 years ago, and don’t have paper work referring to location… same grandfather though. I can try harder to verify…would you think it would help clarify the share percentage? Thx
Scion5, at present time it is going to be hard to establish a true 1/2. There is a company challenging the interpretation in these deeds in favor of 1/2 in Marion County, WV, but I am not real optimistic they will be successful. During this time many 1/16th deeds contained additional enlargement language stating 1/2 of the royalty, etc. I’d be curious to see if that is the case in your deed. Do you have the DB/PG? I have bought and sold thousands of acres in Wetzel/Marion/Mon/Marshall - most buyers out of caution will only credit 1/16th and read the deed at face value. Good Luck, and keep an eye on the case in Marion County.
If this is taken on appeal or a unique issue is developed for a new case, then there is an opportunity for clarification. Too many people attempt to interpret granting language in their favor rather than by clear analysis. This should also serve as a lesson for mineral owners to seek qualified professional assistance in the preparation of transfer documents. I have seen many attorneys prepare deeds that created more problems due to lack of experience in the field.
Appreciate input. The 1891 deed in wetzal county is on DB32 page 543. In regards to percentages,…It says " the 1/16th part of all the oil and gas on or under" Circuit judge did rule in favor of that meaning 1/2 of the 1/8th total, which of course referred to 12.5% standard royalty at that time early in the industry. In appellate case, opposing argument was based on the “4 corners” and “unambiguous” legal positions. 4 corners says if it says 1/16th it can only mean 1/16th and a judge cannot use common sense or any thing from outside the 4 corners of the piece of paper to interpret it. Seems to mean that using same argument of every word meaning exactly what it says, that the wording of " the 1/16th part" is obviously not just “a sixteenth” of something. Those words refer to some thing, a definite object understood by grantor and grantee at the time. $600 was price, equal to something north of $20,000 in todays money. Don’t think that was from a seasoned oil contractor from sistersville where explosion of oil wells began. EQT says they believe we deserve the 1/2 share and is why they ask about 10 of us to get a quiet deed or declaratory action from a judge. At this time it just seems we need to wait for supreme court appeal. I would like to sell now, but don’t think and buyers will give me the 1/2 once they do dd.
I spoke with the Attorney who presented the case to the appellate court and the case is on appeal to WV supreme court. That may present some clarification on issue. Seems some states definitely hold that a 1/16th represents 1/2 of 1/8th total royalties, while now WV is opposite without some other qualifying language present.
If the appellate court ruled against it, it will be hard for the Supreme Court to rule in favor. Good luck sir, hope the ruling comes down in your favor whenever the WV Supreme Court gets around to the case