Jim, If they partition they have to represent all parties. Here is a link from a partition suit that was denied in Sept. Read the reasons why the company would benefit so they denied it.
http://www.martindale.com/litigation-law/article_Spilman-Thomas-Battle-PLLC_2179348.htm
DT, my sister called today and found out that that decision you linked to was not appealed so it stands as case law in the district. It is past any deadline to appeal.
Hey Nancy, Sure would be nice for the mineral owners to get a break from these big companies. Something wrong with them acting like the government and taking what is not theirs. Tell Betty, thanks for checking on the appeal.
Tonya, taking the numbers you wrote, I went to the map link
which was working now, and found that the numbers you gave go to the southeast. There are also 3 permits issued going northwest from there
085-10161, 085-10162, 085-10168. These have plats issued. You can go to the downloads site
http://downloads.wvgs.wvnet.edu/BatchInfo/
Select Ritchie, then those numbers and select plat. You can see how those are going. Your property is probably to the southeast and that is why you are in those two units. Anyway, it is a good idea to keep up with all activity on all the permitted wells on your wellhead area.
Here is the place to check for permit activity
https://apps.dep.wv.gov/oog/permitlist_new.cfm
You can go here Place to sign up for email notices of permits
and follow directions to get on the email list for Ritchie and any other counties you are interested in. This will tell when a permit is issued, so you can start looking on the downloads list. Also will give proposed permits and locations ( go here Longitidue and Latitude converter: Easting and Northing
) to see the location. Most of these won't be near you but always a good idea to check them out.
DT
The judge in that case practiced law with my brother. I know him from my past. That case has a long way to go through the courts before it can become the law of the land. 50/50. Hope the courts do change the way they handle partition suits, but......I was sued for partition without a lenient judge. Settled before trial. If we hadn't, we would have lost out big time.
Nancy
Just because it wasn't appealed does not make it the law of the land. This judge may rule this way, but until the high court rules on an appeal, it is law nowhere. Same reason that the Tawney case did nothing to help against flat rate leases even though a judge at the circuit level (same as here) ruled they were void/voidable or whatever he ruled. No effect. Not binding anywhere.
My sister thought that it was now law in that district which includes Pleasants and Ritchie. Maybe just the specifics of the case.
And Judge Sweeney is the one who comes to Ritchie and thus the one who would preside if a similar suit were brought in Ritchie.
There are no laws specific to a "district" (called circuits in WV). Laws are specific to the state. At least in cases like this. Judge Sweeney may continue to rule the same way, but anyone could appeal. The reason it was not appealed is probably because of the cost of appeal for the landowner who would have had to pay his attorney if the company had appealed. They knew this and probably accepted a lease settlement based on the high costs. That was the reason we settled. BTW, there is not really any trial so to speak in a partition suit. Appraisers are appointed, value is determined and either some sort of agreement is reached or the interests are sold at public auction on the court house steps. Very unfair, but the way it is done....assuming you don't have someone like Judge Sweeney presiding.
Jim, thanks for the posts and experience regarding partition suits. I posted a request in October for any info because, partition suits were being threatened to some mineral owners. There was very little talk on any of the sites and no info being posted on any ones experience with a suit. You would here of threats but no one gave the end result on whether the suit was actually filed. This has become the companies way of getting around forced pooling. With the change of control of the legislature in Charleston and energy commities being planned, who knows what's in store for mineral owners.
Thanks, Jim and DT for your comments and information. We who have not signed leases or lease modifications have been or could be threatened with partitioning. As DT implies, forced pooling could pass with the current legislative membership in WV. All the good advice about what to include and hold out for in a lease may not help if a mineral owner is forced to take what the company wants to offer. If we thought it was complicated before, we may just be getting started!
They must own an interest in the minerals (in our case, they owned 5/6th of the mineral rights) or they must persuade a part owner to sue and what they promise them is anyone's guess. Not sure how they do that, but it is just "wrong"! Didn't want anyone to make decisions thinking they could get out of a partition suit in those three counties. I forget what is the third county Judge Sweeney handles. My brother was the circuit judge for many years just before Sweeney got elected.
Jim & Nancy & everyone
Antero bought or "borrowed" mineral interest from one of the out of the family signed heirs and gave him cash for a portion of his minerals. They already had some deeded from another out of family heir so, I do not know why they obtained more. That gave them a share of our minerals. That in itself is a scary thought. The reason you have not seen many partitions filed in the past couple of years, is because of "easy" mineral owners. Those people signed pretty soon after they were contacted with little or no changes. Forward to those informed people, who did not fall for the companies unprofessional tactics. Those people fought the companies and in the end, some got some good changes and signed. Some like us, did sign because, we wanted royalty paid, where we did not get hammered in deductions. So, the company said, no way, take it or, we file partition suit. So.... we got sued and then received our summons. The summons/complaint wording makes you look like you are the villain. No wonder people hate go to a partition hearing and deal with these people. Last time I looked, I don't think they make them take the oath that what they say is true. So....you have the option to go to the partition hearing and let the judge decide or you can sign a crappy lease. That's what the people mentioned above did, who just signed and got nothing changed. Not a whole lot of difference. I looked at my email file and I had a folder with 63 emails dealing with leasing. My sent folder had 73 dealing with leasing. I can't say we did not try to get a level playing field and fight for what was right. Our concern was not the partition suit. I felt we could win that. The scary thought is the "new" republican legislature, meeting now in Charleston. They are taking a hard look at the oil/gas situation and forced pooling is one thing they will address. They established a committee to address the energy situation in the state. The state is also putting out several bids to let drilling on state lands. So... who are they looking out for? Done!!
DT that is really scary. It seems like the company can get what it wants one way or another.
I am still hoping that Woody Ireland, the representative from Ritchie County, can help the mineral owners. But the companies have a lot of power.
I have mineral rights in Ellenboro. I am in the process of reviewing a lease from Antero. Does anyone already have experience with a lease containing an "enhancement" clause and how that impacted deductions from your royalty percentage. Or asked another way, are enhancement deducts the same as post production costs deductions in part or in total? Does an enhancement clause really help me?
Hi Paul, Antero's Mineral Enhancement Clause can allow them to take post production costs. I think these clauses help the company. Antero seems reluctant to give leases without them, but worth asking for. That is probably the most important aspect of the lease.
Comment by DT just nowDelete Comment
Paul
The Market Enhancement clause was nothing more than the old Post-production Cost language, with an emphasis on how the costs being deducted actually increased the value of the gas. If you compare the old language and the new language, there was almost no difference.
When someone asked a landman about it, they would respond, “those costs actually increase the amount of royalty you get because they increase the value of the gas.” Wrong
The companies are also offering the gross proceeds at the wellhead and mineral enhancement as their two options but not as good as one would like. They try to get you to sign the base lease with no changes. What else are they offering and how much mineral acreage do you have?
DT has given some good information. He has experience in this. Also inportant: how many other people co-own your mineral rights? no need to answer here, but the more that stick together, the greater power the group has.
Another important thing: go to the West Virginia Owners group on this forum
West Virginia Mineral Owners group
and read about forced pooling. If the companies can get this bill passed, they will have even more power in the negotiations.
Read as much as you can, on this and the Doddridge County group where there has been a LOT of discussion.
Ask as many questions as you can. Learn. Ellenboro is one of the areas of interest for Antero and EQT who are developing most of Clay district because it has what they want, natural gas liquids, so put your time in and make a good decision.
http://129.71.117.165/WEBInquiry/Default.aspx
I found the two links above for Doddridge and Tyler Counties for Document Inquiry. Does someone have a similar link for Ritchie County Document Inquiry? Thanks in Advance if you do!
Try us land records.com select WV then select Ritchie. This goes back to July 1985 but is really only an index. You must pay to view or download. Some revenue probably goes to the county. For earlier records there are complicated ways to find them but not online yet.