The “Estate Distribution”‘s filed for my grandfather (1938) and my father (1990), on Oklahoma properties describe the rights being transferred in several different ways. What is the difference in the rights transferred based on the terminology being used. Was the attorney inconsistent in any of this terminology? Are some changes due to changes in legal jargon over time?
1990 distribution:
“An undivided 1/15th interest in: the SE…” Would this denote transfer of surface land along w/ any not severed minerals? The rights to lease, receive bonus, etc?
“A 1/6th interest in all the oil, gas … minerals lying in, on and under the SE…” This covers minerals & the right to lease, receive bonus and royalties?
“.01171875 RI interest in all the oil, gas and … minerals lying in, on and under SE…” The rights to a % of profits produced, but not the right to lease or receive bonus?
“.01171875 ORRI interest in all the oil, gas and …lying in, on and under….” Perpetual Interest?
A 1/24th overriding royalty interest in oil and gas lease covering; SW…”
Do the mineral rights expire if and when the lease terminates?
1938 distribution:
Could some of these denote my grandfather was the lesser not the lessee?
“Undivided 1/3rd interest in SW1/4 … Subject to oil and gas lease.”
“The SE1/4 …inc. royalty”
“1/3 interest in and to Oil and Gas Leases covering sw1/4...”
“Brown Lease: 1/3rd interest in SE…”
Thank you
Louise, I'm not an attorney but let me toss this out for the benefit of anyone reading this. When writing a Deed of Distribution from an estate, it is best to use a phrase such as, "ALL of the descendant's interests", rather than specifying a precise interest. If the minerals are being conveyed to several heirs (say three kids) then the deed could read "1/3rd of ALL of the descendant's interests" to each of the three heirs. However it is best not to specify what that descendant's interest was.
In other words you're not stating an exact decimal interest such as the .01171875, nor their fractional interest such as the 1/15th. When you specify an amount you run the risk of 'leaving behind' a portion which isn't conveyed out of an estate. The descendant owned what they owned. Your deed can not give you more than what they owned no matter what you specify, but it can give you less.
Louise, as to your questions, what you've written appears to describe several different interests (both mineral interest and royalty interests). The terminology used does not reflect changes in legal jargon as much as it reflects different authors. The phrase "subject to oil and gas lease" is standard boiler plate language used in most deeds. The phrase simply confirms that the new owner is subject to any existing lease the former owner was bound to. It may be conveying some surface land along with minerals, though it is valid language for just minerals alone. However, the rest of the deed should indicate if more than minerals were involved.
If you're unsure exactly what is owned, if I were you I would go to the courthouse and research from the beginning. See what deeds (mineral & royalty, & surface) are recorded on these tracts. It may be just confused language describing the same interests but it appears to me they're trying to convey several things here. Though if Dad's interest was derived from Granddad's it is not very clear just what he had. I'd want to know and the only way to do so is by researching these tracts (SE & SW). Good Luck.
Eastern MT-
You are correct that the better practice is to say "1/3rd each to Grantees of all of Decedent's interest ..."
Mr. Caldwell, thanks for cleaning that up for me. Bottom line, it is unnecessary and unwise to try to describe the deceased party's specific interest. You are only trying to describe the proportion going to their heirs.
The 1939 deed of distribution I believe was written by an attorney by the name of Wood Glass, out of Nowata OK. I know he was extremely knowledgeable in oil and gas law for that time period. The 1990's distribution was also written by a knowledgeable attorney from Nowata by the name of W.E.Maddux. Since both addressed the different properties in several different formats, I imagine each was wording the conveyance's to denote different types or levels of mineral interests. OK follows follows the "Non-Ownership " theory of ownership (rule of capture); that's why I think the phrases they used for the time period were significant.
Eastern MT- everything you wrote is so correct and the best way to transfer interests in this day and age. Thank you all for your time and excellent suggestions. I'm sure many readers profited. My end intent is to determine exactly what was owned, passed down and or purchased from 1900-1950; what remains today. A trip to OK or hiring a landsman to search title is in order.
thank you so much for such a clear and consice answer.