So, before I get on the horn and start making accusations, I want to ask how it works.
Ok, so apparently other heirs where found during the back title search on our mineral rights we leased. We discovered this when the division orders came in and the decimal interest wasn't correct. After a week of phone calls, I finally received an email from the DO acquisitioner that simply stated "your immediate family are not the only heirs."
We where told when we signed the lease that the drilling company would take out taxes on the checks, so when we receive those checks several months ago, we where not surprised that they where smaller and assumed they had been raped by taxes (of coarse there was no information on the stub but a lease number). Fast forward to a couple of days ago; receive our 1099 misc. for the bonus payments. No taxes were taken out and in fact the whole dollar amount from the lease had been cut in half (we are presuming to the other heirs found during title search).
The question is, if during a back title search other heirs are found that did not sign the original lease and are entitled to be on said lease, shouldn't have the original lease been null and void with a new one signed to including found heirs?
To me, to not say anything and just adjust the lease and the bonus payment is breech of contract. Am I wrong?
Thank you,
Alicia
Yes, you are wrong. A lease taken from someone who owns an undivided interest is valid as to that interest. The fact that everyone who owns an interest in the stated legal description on the lease, has not executed the lease, is neither here nor there. The notion that the lease is null and void is absurd. Anyone with an undivided interest can either lease or not lease, as they so choose. It is their interest.
There is also typical language in a standard lease form regarding proportionate reduction.
Dave Quincy said:
Yes, you are wrong. A lease taken from someone who owns an undivided interest is valid as to that interest. The fact that everyone who owns an interest in the stated legal description on the lease, has not executed the lease, is neither here nor there. The notion that the lease is null and void is absurd. Anyone with an undivided interest can either lease or not lease, as they so choose. It is their interest.
You should find a clause similar to this in most standard lease forms. I think it may answer your question.
"If this lease covers a less interest in the oil, gas, sulphur, or other minerals in all or any part of said land than the entire and undivided fee simple estate (whether Lessor's interest is herein specified or not), or no interest therein, then the royalties and other moneys accruing from any part as to which this lease covers LESS than such full interest, shall be paid ONLY IN THE PROPORTION which the interest therein, if any, covered by this lease, bears to the whole and undivided fee simple estate therein."
Dave Quincy said:
There is also typical language in a standard lease form regarding proportionate reduction.
Dave Quincy said:
Yes, you are wrong. A lease taken from someone who owns an undivided interest is valid as to that interest. The fact that everyone who owns an interest in the stated legal description on the lease, has not executed the lease, is neither here nor there. The notion that the lease is null and void is absurd. Anyone with an undivided interest can either lease or not lease, as they so choose. It is their interest.