November 19 was my last real reply to this thread. Since you know everything there is no need for me to reply more. I will once again wish you good fortune.
Agreed. And the purpose of the law is so that one co-owner will not be able to prohibit the others from enjoying their minerals. Sometimes it can work against a co-owner, like in this case. But if I were a co-owner, I wouldn't want one person to stop me from being able to explore and develop my minerals. Co-ownership in any property has disadvantages, to say the least.
So you think that even though the contract forces one signer to accept third person liability and face possible financial ruin that is not as "important" then others enjoying their "rights"?
As I mentioned before, are West Virginians programed to be submissive??? Or is it West Virginians, in general, are greedy and do not care what happens to others???
Am I to play "dumb" because others can't read a contract and determine what the clauses and conditions mean???
Since none of the other co-owners seem to want to buy me out, and they have had ample time, they can wait for the few pennies they may receive from royalties. All they have to do is follow up with their cousins in the next county and they will find out that is exactly what is going to happen.
No one has proved what I said was wrong. All the co-owners have to do is ask their cousins in the next country "how rich" they have become from signing a similar contact in their county. RCR
Follow up to the above argument:
Someplace on this site I indicated I had set a "trap", so, warning, do not go overboard in your replies as I have indicated there may be a trap.
As for the trap, so far what I have discovered is that some people on this board actually take the time to provide plausible information while other parties use thee opportunity to declare they are unhappy with people who refuse to sign contracts because they are "preventing " the them from "getting rich".
The trap indicates those who are suggesting I am "self centered" are just as "self centered" when it comes to their receiving royalty money. Those people want me to risk financial disaster for their benefit. (What have those people done for me lately...?)
"How would they know how to contact you?" they may ask. Hint: That is another reason I set the trap. It seems that all 200+ co-owners should have received copies of the same court papers I have received, my contact info is given on the first page. The rest of the document only gives the names of the co-owners.
Why are they not attempting to make contact?
Suggested reason for this is simple, only ONE of the co-owners is complaining, the company seeking the lease. They will not indicate to me if the others co-owners are in agreement with the company's actions against me.
Also, the paperwork I have received to date suggests that some of the co-owners may have signed the contract under pressure, not by desire. How did I determine that? One paper indicates certain parties have objected the contract and the company has taken action against them. The next paper states that the same parties are now in agreement.
The question has to be asked, did they sign in agreement on their own free will or did they feel they were being forced to sign?
The company lawyers keep telling me they do not see why the others have signed and I have not. Answer to that question is the lawyers are "blind" because they represent the company, not the interest of the co-owners.
I keep asking myself why the company refuses to provide answers to valid questions that a person with "reasonable intelligence" (Thank you Watergate!) would need to in order to make a decision?
To bring this post to an end:
The company's lawyers keep telling the judge that they have made reasonable efforts to help bring an agreement. In reality their efforts amount to nothing but, "Sign the contract or we will take you to court!"
By the way, did I mention that members of my family live in certain western states and have had encounters with the same corporation?
They are the ones providing the info in regards to what action I will see form the corporation next. They do not have one good word to say about the corporation.
RCR 12/17/2016