Dear Mineral Joe,
Deleting the warranty provision in the lease does no good as far as returning money.
The covenant of seizin basically says that you have the right to execute the lease and have title. Deleting the warranty does not address statutory or implied warranties.
As to considering if the lease is a top lease, you will need to find out if your state follows Shelley’s case or has abrogated by statute. In a nutshell, the top lease must be effective in a time certain - not just an overlay on top of an existing lease. That would violate the rule against perpetuities and as a result, the top lease would not be enforceable.
Which is fine, except that it does not trump the covenant of seizin.
Striking the warranty of title is not the same thing as broadly disclaiming warranty with provisions for no repayment of monies due to failure of title or incapacity to execute. Then anybody claiming under the covenant of seizin would be dancing on the head of a pin.
Mineral Joe said:
R W,
Funny you should ask, just yesterday I received an interest payment from Brigham. It took several requests and I am uncertain I received the correct amount but I am in the end satisfied. My hats off to them, in the long run they are a cut above the rest.
Talk about check in hand, I drove to a fairly local lease broker’s office to drop off an executed lease and pick up my check after they wanted to lease some of my minerals. I told them I’d prefer a check and so three times I asked if they had run title and three times they told me yes. Now weeks later and after they recorded the lease I get a certified letter in the mail telling me they want their money back. Come to find out they took a top lease as the previous lease doesn’t expire for another year (leased by prior owner). So does one return their money or consider it a top lease?