Information for anyone that owns minerals or for people that know someone that owns minerals in Dimmit County, Texas, Bermuda Colony Subdivision, Abstract 149, 150, 151, 154, and 155. There has been a Trespass to Try Title by adverse possession Cause No. 13-04-11947-DCVAJA to claim the surface and minerals in most of the tracts in this area. The Citation for Publication is running in the Carrizo Springs Javelin Newspaper and started in the June 5, 2013 publication. We thought we would share this information with everyone just in case you don’t know about the suit, because if you don’t answer the suit then it is possible to lose your minerals to the people that filed the suit.
2577-CitationByPublicationDixondaleSuit61213.pdf (1.35 MB)Do other mineral holders have experience with this type of suit?
Is the plaintiff only trying to claim minerals that were never severed from the surface or is this a motion wherein the plaintiff is seeking to claim previously severed minerals?
Any thoughts would be appreciated. If i read this correctly and based on limited information on this area, many small 10 acre tracts make up the lands in this area…
And thank you Mr Eardley for putting this out for others to see
Hi Doug and thanks Bob (or better guess Donna),
Here is the deal == and it is going on strongly near the town of Cotulla in LaSalle county as well.
Some speculators came in and divided up the land years ago, sort of like the land swindles where New Yorkers were buying Florida swamp lands. TYPICALLY, when the lands were sold to the northerners, the seller reserved 1/2 of the minerals. During the depression, nobody claimed, paid taxes on the property, did not habitate it, use if for anything, did not fence it and allowed the ranchers who were living and working down there to go ahead and fence in the whole subdivision and start running cattle. This was pretty much all the land was really good for and it was not very good for that.
So here comes the Eagleford shale and wells are needing to be drilled. Since in most cases the minerals were severed as to 1/2, then that 1/2 owner(s) minerals are safe from AP. However, the folks who left in the depression still have record title to the land in a competing chain.
So, in order to perfect title, the landowner who is in possession of the surface is claiming title to the surface and 1/2 of the minerals (that was owned by the landowner when he walked off) by adverse possession. In Texas, possession of the severed portion of the minerals must be done by actually producing the minerals for 30 years. There is a LOT more to it than that.
Some heirs are getting notices of suits and are trying to prove their right as an heir to the depression landowners and fight, or never receive notice (hence the reason for publication in the paper designated as the county journal). A Trespass to try title suit is the mechanism for removing the cloud on title.
Tough to fight when someone else has been possessing grand dad's land for the past 80 years or so, but there certainly could be compromises to be made.
Best to all
William Douglas Archer said:
Do other mineral holders have experience with this type of suit?
Is the plaintiff only trying to claim minerals that were never severed from the surface or is this a motion wherein the plaintiff is seeking to claim previously severed minerals?
Any thoughts would be appreciated. If i read this correctly and based on limited information on this area, many small 10 acre tracts make up the lands in this area..
And thank you Mr Eardley for putting this out for others to see
@ Doug, This will be our first experience with this type of suit. As per Buddy's reply, severed minerals are suppose to be safe except in certain circumstance. We have some more researching and learning to do to learn how this process will work. You are right in that the area is made up of 10 acre tracts. Your welcome in response to posting this, we just wanted to bring this to light for other people who may not see the paper.
Hi Buddy,
We both thought about posting, but I did the typing. Thanks for the good information. I was wondering if you might be able to shed some light on the following question: If the person list certain tracts and names in their Trespass to Try Title, but then mentions that their deed is for 2071 acres and attaches the metes and bounds to the petition as Exhibit A and they continue to state that they own all the real property, including the minerals, should a person answer the suit as to the minerals they know they own and have already been severed under the surface? By the way they do mention producing minerals within their 10 and 25 year possession of the land within the petition.
I saw your question about the calf in the general discussion area so I'll answer it here. The bottle fed calf is now almost a year old and I weaned him a few months ago. He is out roaming with the herd and doing fine. I do get to see him occasionally and he will still come to me for some petting and thinks he can still get some milk. In case people don't know it, they do have good memories.
Hope you are doing great and we wish you and your family all the best.
Bob and Donna
Robert, There are special rules to answering trespass to try title actions. I would suggest not trying to do this yourself. Buddy is correct on the general history, although many of the land speculators did not reserve any minerals. Oil companies will generally come and lease all the potential interests, and then let the competing owners fight it out. That way they can go ahead and drill and then hold the royalties until the litigation is over.
Wade,
Thank you for your input and we will not be doing this by our self, attorney is hired. I'm sure the oil company is the one that got the surface owner started on this. But minerals where severed way before the surface owner purchased the land, it's just causing certain people an inconvenience and undo legal expenses since they worded the petition the way they did.