I’ve recently signed a lease that has been decided as paying me only 1/4 of what I’d thought I’d get. Here is the shortest way I can describe it… many years ago 160 acres was divided amongst 5 people. 1 of those 5 is my grandmother and she & my father have both passed. So myself and another are heirs to the 32 acres - giving us 16 each.
Thats the easy part. The real ? is – 3 years after the division of 1/5 to my grandmother she then submitted a 1/10 ‘Warranty Deed’ to another party. According to the Oil Co. now, the 1/10 comes from the overall 160 gross acres and not her inherited 32 net. If the 1/10 came from only her slice of 32 net it’s benefitting me more.
Am I to accept this as fact? It seems strange to me that 1/10 can be handed over when 4/5 are other heirs slices of the pie.
You are mixing gross acres and net acres. The legal description is 160 acres. When it was divided, each heir got 1/5 of the 160 acres. So a lease would describe the 160 acre tract, and the owner would be paid on 1/5 of the 160 acres = 32 NMA (net mineral acres). If your grandmother sold 1/10 of her interest, the buyer got 1/10 X 1/5 X 160 acres = 3.2 NMA. That left your grandmother with 9/10 X 1/5 x 160 = 28.8 NMA. Your father got the 28.8 NMA. You get 1/2 X 9/10 X1/5 X 160 acres = 14.4 NMA out of the 160 acres. Each of the other 4 original heirs each still would have 1/5 X 160 acres = 32 NMA. Of course, each interest has likely been subdivided since then.
I hear ya! Huge help, so thank you. Unfortunately, it’s a 1971 ‘Warranty Deed’ and according to their landman (and Oil Co. lawyer) the wording of this particular document isnt specific enough to side on the Net Mineral Acre (N.M.A.) side which would’ve been the 3.2 N.M.A.
The way the Warranty Deed is worded is, “An undivided 1/10th right, title and interest in and to the following described property:” (goes onto list the section specifics totaling 160).
So their stating it’s 1/10 of the gross 160 making it 16 N.M.A. of my grandmothers / Dad’s 32 N.M.A given away here. Kind of a bummer as it’s much less in this case and it sounds like they’ve seen these dubious wordings before.
A basic flaw in the logic here is that, in fact, the grandmother sold 1/10 interest in the entire undivided 160 acres, NOT1/10 interest of her 1/5 share. Another unspoken piece of the equation is how many other heirs to the grandmothers estate are out there, assuming it was divided equally (e.g. suppose the grandmother had 4 children, that would mean at least 4 potential heirs).
There is no way to be certain about what was sold without reading the deed in its entirety. Many deeds contain limiting language or reservations in subsequent paragraphs. Or in some cases the deed may expand the assignment, such as by including ‘all other minerals in the county.’ Commentary is always limited to the facts circumstances as set forth by the poster, and not on speculation. Certainly, the grandmother could have had more children and heirs. But she could also have assigned 90% of her interest to her son before executing the 1971 warranty deed.
Since you posted the legal description in another post I was able, via 1docmarket, to look at the 1971 deed in its entirety. Seemed pretty unambiguous to me.
It appears the original undivided 160 acres was inherited/owned by 5 people one of whom was your grandmother. She subsequently sold 1/10 of the undivided 160 acres (i.e. 1/2 her total share) to a third party leaving her with a 1/10 interest in the undivided 160 acres (16 net acres). Since you share 16 NMA with another heir your share is 8 NMA.
When you say “divided” was this by individual deeds with legal descriptions or in some other manner? If it was, it is easy to determine what your grandmother later sold. However, say it was by inheritance - I give X to my five children. If this was the case, and the land was not divided and then transfer during probate, then you have a co-tenancy issue of some type.
So the issue is, how was the land transferred to your grandmother and the four others?