Cookie:
I think that your situation would warrent the consultation from an oil and gas attorney (Texas based). I would gather all supporting paperwork from the past and submit these to the attorney as if you elect to persue this matter, it will most likely be contested. Good luck.
This is an unusual situation but one that definitely warrants the opinion of an oil and gas attorney and possibly even a judgment by a court. No doubt if there is significant production, there will be significant resistance to turning over 50% ownership to you; however, it sounds to me, as a layman, that you may very well be in the right and if so, it may be an easy thing to accomplish. I doubt that you would be able to get past due monies but I'd say "no problem, let's just move forward." I would not rely solely on the advise of the oil company's attorney. (I once discovered that my family's royalty share was being paid to relatives, so when the problem was pointed out and fixed, there was never talk of retreiving past monies, but it was an insignificant amount). Good luck, please keep us posted.
Sounds like community property, but have an attorney review the documents and the circumstances around the deeds.
There are two wells on the properties in question ready to be drilled according to the oil company. We are told the rigs are in place. There is no past money involved and even tough we are only talking about 20 acres total, that is a lot of money into the future even at minimal production. The abstracts are A-1037 and A-1098 Gardendale Colonies, La Salle.
I thank you and others for your input.
10 net mineral acres in the Eagle Ford ready to drill is worth contacting an attorney for.
I am in the process of looking for an attorney now. Can someone tell me if mineral rights in Texas can be sold seperately by a wife or husband if the properties were bought by the husband while married? (35 years at that time) In other words, let's say I am married. My husband wants to sell the rights, I don't. He can sell his 50%, correct? If we look at it that way, then we would own the rights to the 10 acres net. Father sold his 50, mother did not. It is recorded that way in La Salle. Thank you for your valued opinion.
Cookie, generally you are correct, but it is not that black and white. An attorney who knows Texas community property law can explain the maybes.
NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Regardless if the deed in 1964 conveyed only to your father, if he was married to your mother at the exact moment that he purchased the minerals they are considered community property UNLESS they were specifically conveyed to him as his "sole and separate property." (There is another situation in which I can envision the property acquired in 1964 being separate property, but it is an extremely unlikely and confusing scenario so I will leave out discussion about it.) So look at the Deed from 1964 very closely, does it say anywhere on there that the land and/or minerals were to be his "sole and separate property?"
Secondly, usually when one includes the phrases “not joined by my wife” and “constitutes no part of our homestead," it means that one is conveying, or at least purporting to convey, separate property. However, theoretically the same wording could be used to convey an undivided 1/2 community interest, although I have never seen it done that way before. Assuming the minerals acquired in 1964 were in fact community property and assuming that your father and mother had not been divorced between 1964 and 1974, you might have a case.
However, you would also need to consider probate and intestacy matters, both of which might have affected title to these minerals since 1974. What I mean is that if either of your parents died, then depending upon when that happened and whether or not he or she had a Will that was accepted by a Probate Court you might be entitled to none, some, or all of the minerals. For ten net mineral acres, yes, I would consult an attorney.
Pete,
Thank you for your reply. It is actually 20 mineral acres with 2 wells on it, as we speak (in a 200 acre pool.) We did consult an attorney but do not have thousands of dollars to chase our tail. Our attorneys (not hired yet at the time of consultation) wanted a few thousand dollars "to do research" before moving ahead. We do not have the money for that kind of extensive research for a law firm.
Both parents are deceased. The minerals were not mentioned in either probated will. Mother died 3 years after the sale (no mention of minerals in probated will) father died 1986 (again, no mention of minerals) These mineral were not discovered in titles until 2012 by Chesapeake's land men until 25 years after the death of father. We were surprised to hear of them.
Here is the reason we lost the mineral rights even though we proved it was community property. Mother signed the sale of the land but not the minerals later. She must have been aware and did not want to sell them. She was not ill or dying at the time of the sale. There was no reason for her not to sign. She died 3 years later, leaving all to husband. The answer of why we do NOT own the minerals according to Chesapeake's attorney is the definition of "AFTER AQUIRED TITLE:
"When a seller conveys land to another on the belief that s/he had good title to the land, and later s/he acquires title to that land, then buyer automatically acquires title to the transferred land. As soon as the seller actually acquires title, title passes to the person to whom it was sold. However, this doctrine of after-acquired title generally does not apply when the seller receives title by quitclaim deed. (not the case) The deed conveying the land must include words expressing an intention to vest title in the grantee.
In other words, a spouse in Texas can sell title to anything he wants without consent of other spouse. If other spouse dies, it is assumed that title was sold in good faith, and buyer is protected, therefore owns title to purchase.
Seems to leave a lot of opportunity for fraud between married partners, but it is called community property law. Houses have titles, your pick up truck has a title. Does not seem to matter. Your spouse can sell them, as long as you die and leave it to the person surviving. I just can't get that trough my head, having lived in Texas 35 years.
Thanks
Law Firms: Advertise on USLegal, Inc.
Reach millions of Legal Consumers every month.
Advertise with USLegal.com!
NOT LEGAL ADVICE
OK, first of all, the minerals do not have to be specifically or even generally mentioned in a Will for title to vest in the appropriate Beneficiary or Beneficiaries. If there is a Residuary Clause in the Will and there is no mention of the minerals in the Inventory & Appraisement and the minerals are not bequeathed in any other part of the Will, title will pass to the Beneficiary of the Residuary Clause. If there is no Residuary Clause in the Will and there is some property that falls into that Clause (meaning that the property was not bequeathed in any other part of the Will), which is extremely rare, I believe that title in that case would follow the laws of descent and distribution in your state, although I am not positive.
Secondly, you have not proven that the minerals were community property. They probably were since your parents were married at the time that your father bought them but I am unconvinced since the original deed was in his name only and the Mineral Deed when the minerals were sold used language typical of a conveyance of separate property, not community property. But again, a person can receive property that is his separate property even though he is married at the time, either through inheritance or through a regular purchase as long as the conveyance states that it is to be Grantee's separate property AND Grantee used money that was his separate property to make the purchase.
As far as your case goes, from what I have read, Chesapeake has a good argument to make. It would all depend upon exactly how that Mineral Deed is worded.
Again, thank you for your reply. The reason I say that it was community property is this:
Dad buys property on 10/02/1964, four lots - no mention of mother but without separate property wording, paperwork, trust etc.... He purchased and paid for 80 acres including all minerals. The title was recorded in the La Salle County court house in dad's name only.
07/20/65 husband and wife sold all 80 acres of surface land to a rancher in Cotulla. BOTH parents signed, conveying all 80 acres of land but "keeping all minerals forever". This leads me to believe that they owned the mineral rights jointly.
07/23/65 mom and dad as husband and wife sell the mineral rights to 2 lots, both parents signed, again confirming that they owned the minerals jointly.
5/22/74 dad alone sells the mineral rights to the remaining 2 lots to the land owner. No mention of mother.
Mother died almost 3 years later, leaving father the estate.
I am under the impression, according to CHK, that it does not matter if it was community property. 25 years after father's death CHK approached us through a land man about leasing 20 acres and made us an offer on bonus money. We used an oil and gas attorney to negotiate the lease since we had executive rights, according to CHK. Our attorney insisted that the minerals were ours due to the mother still owning 50% of the minerals. When CHK did title opinion, CHK decided that we did not own them due to "after acquired title". Their attorneys say that since wife died and husband had sold mineral legally or illegally, the minerals belong to the rancher's wife. End of story. We have disputed the matter but did not get a reply.
It says nothing about grantee's separate property.
I just re read your reply and think that "not joined herein by my wife" and "constitutes no part of our homestead" may be the key.
Pete Wrench said:
NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Regardless if the deed in 1964 conveyed only to your father, if he was married to your mother at the exact moment that he purchased the minerals they are considered community property UNLESS they were specifically conveyed to him as his "sole and separate property." (There is another situation in which I can envision the property acquired in 1964 being separate property, but it is an extremely unlikely and confusing scenario so I will leave out discussion about it.) So look at the Deed from 1964 very closely, does it say anywhere on there that the land and/or minerals were to be his "sole and separate property?"
Secondly, usually when one includes the phrases “not joined by my wife” and “constitutes no part of our homestead," it means that one is conveying, or at least purporting to convey, separate property. However, theoretically the same wording could be used to convey an undivided 1/2 community interest, although I have never seen it done that way before. Assuming the minerals acquired in 1964 were in fact community property and assuming that your father and mother had not been divorced between 1964 and 1974, you might have a case.
However, you would also need to consider probate and intestacy matters, both of which might have affected title to these minerals since 1974. What I mean is that if either of your parents died, then depending upon when that happened and whether or not he or she had a Will that was accepted by a Probate Court you might be entitled to none, some, or all of the minerals. For ten net mineral acres, yes, I would consult an attorney.
I forgot to answer the question. No, it does NOT say it is separate property and/or the sole property of dad on the original deed. Does anyone know an attorney who would take this for the bonus money?
Cookie Gartner said:
I just re read your reply and think that "not joined herein by my wife" and "constitutes no part of our homestead" may be the key.
Pete Wrench said:NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Regardless if the deed in 1964 conveyed only to your father, if he was married to your mother at the exact moment that he purchased the minerals they are considered community property UNLESS they were specifically conveyed to him as his "sole and separate property." (There is another situation in which I can envision the property acquired in 1964 being separate property, but it is an extremely unlikely and confusing scenario so I will leave out discussion about it.) So look at the Deed from 1964 very closely, does it say anywhere on there that the land and/or minerals were to be his "sole and separate property?"
Secondly, usually when one includes the phrases “not joined by my wife” and “constitutes no part of our homestead," it means that one is conveying, or at least purporting to convey, separate property. However, theoretically the same wording could be used to convey an undivided 1/2 community interest, although I have never seen it done that way before. Assuming the minerals acquired in 1964 were in fact community property and assuming that your father and mother had not been divorced between 1964 and 1974, you might have a case.
However, you would also need to consider probate and intestacy matters, both of which might have affected title to these minerals since 1974. What I mean is that if either of your parents died, then depending upon when that happened and whether or not he or she had a Will that was accepted by a Probate Court you might be entitled to none, some, or all of the minerals. For ten net mineral acres, yes, I would consult an attorney.
Well, from this additional information that you have provided I do believe that the minerals were community property at the time they were purchased, but they still could have been separate property if he used separate funds to purchase them, which is highly unlikely. For example, if his Aunt Betty Joe left him $10,000 in cash in her Will and he bought the minerals with that money, it would be his separate property even if he was married at the time. Again, highly unlikely.
So now we must look at the exact wording of the Mineral Deed. If it states something to the effect of, "I am conveying my 1/2 separate property interest in the minerals," or "I am conveying my 1/2 community interest in the minerals," or "I am conveying whatever minerals I own in the aforementioned property at this time," then I think that you have a case. Otherwise, if it contains a general conveyance and a warranty, then I think that you do not have a case. My guess, again, is that you do not have a case.
For example, if I convey a house to you but then it turns out that I actually owned only half of the house at that time but received ownership to the other half of the house years later, who do you think should own the other half of that house, you or the guy who sold the house to you? You, of course, because there was nothing to indicate that you were receiving only HALF of the house when you bought it. That basically is the concept of after-acquired title.
Yes, thank you again Pete. I think you are correct. Father did not inherit. It took both mom and dad 4 years to pay off the 80 acres from 1964 until 1968 (mom worked many years, and there was only one bank account.)
The house scenario is just as unfair to heirs of the person who is selling the property. Let's say that I am not a good husband to a wife with 5 children. The wife may be ill, very ill. She has cancer and may die. Both parties have worked many years to purchase a home. I now take a mistress and need lots of money. I, the rotten husband sell the title / deed to my community property home, leaving my children on the streets without any inheritance or equity when wife dies. Investor who knew I was rotten gets the house, you and I support the children in foster homes through taxes to the state. It appears to be a double aged sword.
Lucky for me father dabbled in this and I inherited another well in NW La Salle which is now producing. We are waiting on D.O.'s.
Thank you for your time!
Your house scenario is different than the real-world scenario you originally put on this Forum. In your house scenario, you make no mention that the wife dying of cancer bequeathed her property to her husband. So in that case it WOULD not only be unfair but also illegal since the cheating husband could never be entitled to convey what was not his. You, the rotten husband, get sued by wife's heirs. Stupid Investor sues Title Company who provided title policy for negligence, or if no title policy was issued, gets sued because he paid full price for only a one-half ownership in the house.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN YOUR REAL-WORLD EXAMPLE. Your Mother bequeathed her Estate to your father. He had already signed a deed that conveyed whatever interest he had at that time and probably conveyed ANY INTEREST HE MIGHT EVER ACQUIRE IN THE FUTURE to that Buyer. He acquired the other one-half interest from your Mother's Will. He DID inherit, but because he had already signed this other document, the Mineral Deed, the one-half interest that he inherited from your Mother went straight to the original Buyer and your Father could not sell her one-half interest or leave it to you in HIS Will. I think Chesapeake is right in this case, although AGAIN it all depends upon how that Mineral Deed is worded.