Bad legal description on lease

I recently ran into an error on an OGL The Lessor had recorded the lease as S/2 NW/4 SE

NOW the Correct lease should read S/2 NW/4 SE/4

Problem 2 is the previous lease was expired but being held by producer for commencment of operations for drilling about a week before I filed my correct lease . Who has the valid lease?

I would just have an amendment made to the paperwork reflecting the correct lease desciption. Some use a title attorney to handle the legal aspects of the case but I would try and avoid the attorney route due to expenses. This area described is the same in both descriptions but it’s always good to dot the i’s and cross the t’s when dealing with legal descriptions.

YES, badly written but not altogether wrong: descriptions are “read backwards”, so: the south 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 is the same as S2 NW SE (being 20 acres: a 1/4 Section is 160 acres, a 1/4 of 1/4 section is 40 acres and 1/2 of 40 is 20 acres) … my point being that adding the “4” to NW and SE is redundant and not necessary, a common mistake by novice landmen

Thanks for the responses, I to made an error when posting the S/2 NW/4 and SE/4, is the correct legal description… There are 25 net mineral acres total … 5 nma in the NW/4 and the SE/4 contains 20 nma There is no language inserted in the lease stating the full intent of all intrest in the section…

Also note Charles I’m sure a title attorney has looked this over and missed the error, as this section was force pooled recently and was spudded about 2 weeks ago…The lease in question was not on the respondents exhibit nor was any listed for curative