This is pertaining to the Hollylujah and Jimmie Dell wells in Section 34 4n4w. I got my division orders for these wells. But on the division order in the pay status column mine says “Suspend- Unsatisified Title Requirement” Is this something that is probably for everybody that has interest in these wells or do I need to call them and see what the heck is going on? Geez! Thanks, Tom
You need to call or write (by certified mail) or email them and find out what is going on. The Suspended status is a note particularly to you that signifies a title issue that needs to be cured. Find out exactly what you need to satisfy. Ask for a copy of the paragraph from the title opinion that pertains to your ownership. They may need a will probated, or copies of a trust document or something like that. Sometimes, in their title work, they find that acres might have been conveyed in generations past that weren’t really the correct number of acres. Can be any number of things, so find out what they have flagged.
I called Marathon! He said it was put in suspension until they get the signed division order. He said that gives people incentive to mail back their division orders! We will see! Thank you for your help. Tom
Oklahoma does not require a signed division order. (HULL v SUN REFINING AND MARKETING CO 789 P.2d 1272 (1989)) I choose to send them back because I attach my W-9 so they do not take out the federal tax and also because I want to leave my kids a paper trail in my files. I also use the NADOA most recent form and not the oil company form.
1 Like
Well I guess I will see if they send me a letter wanting something! He said my account didn’t have any flags that showed anything other than a division order be requested. Thank you ma’am. Tom
If you need the NADOA form, let me know.
I prefer to provide information in lieu of a division order.
Which information do you provide and does that sort of approach give more protection?
I developed a form entitled " OKLAHOMA OWNER ’ S INFORMATION IN LIEU OF AN OIL & GAS DIVISION ORDER" that provides: Property Number Property Name Operator County Property description Owner Name, address, Phone, Email, Tax Id, owner number, and the fractional interest.
It references the Hull v. Sun Refining and Marketing case and how payments cannot be conditioned upon return of a DO. It cites the Oklahoma statute regarding minimum payments totaling more than $25 must be paid monthly and the minimum annual payment. It has a statement that the information does not modify a lease, and reserves the right to amend the information.
The goal of the form is to provide information for the payor’s system without giving up any rights. I also want to avoid any argument to suggest that the DO modified the lease under the provision in Title 52 Oklahoma Statute Section 570.11 which states “Terms of a division order which conflict with the terms of any oil and gas lease are invalid, unless previously agreed to by the affected parties.”
The Model DO is not bad. But since no DO is required under current Oklahoma law I see no reason to enter one.
On a side note, I reviewed a proposed DO presented to an owner by a notorious crook. The face of the the DO claimed to be the model form, but it had numerous pages of terms and conditions attached. Knowing the modus operandi of the crook, the owner was advised to refuse to sign and to provide the minimal information.
I believe that most operators are honest, but there are some real bad ones out there that give a bad name to the rest.
1 Like
This is interesting. Sorry we did not see this sooner but it is not too late to ask how we might obtain a copy of this form you have devised. We recently received a DO from EXTEX Division Orders on behalf of Coffeyville Resources who apparently taken over distribution of oil royalty payments for Sunoco. Not only do we think the interest is incorrect but the DO also has an entire page of “provisions” on the back side that I did not see at first. We have not signed anything yet but have been wondering how to inform the company that their figure is incorrect and to delete all the provisions. Would welcome any advise or better yet a copy of that form.
I have been in contact with ExTex over Coffeyville division orders. I didn’t sign previously because of the horrendous reworking of my original lease and all their provisions. The gal at ExTex said, as per the law, I don’t have to sign their form. I’m currently in the middle of using the NADOA form. She also said that ExTex often receives DOs with lots of things crossed out - and initialed. My interest is correct.
This topic was automatically closed after 90 days. New replies are no longer allowed.