This will read like a hypothetical situation, but actually it is one I am facing right now. Suppose party A sells land to party B, but party A retains the mineral rights. So at that point, the mineral rights are severed from the deed. Party B then sells the land to party C, who also buys the mineral rights from party A. So now the surface rights and mineral rights are both owned again by the same party. Party C sells the land to party D, and the deed specifically states that the mineral rights are included in the sale. Party D then sells to party E, and the deed makes no mention of mineral rights. Party E then sells the land, fee simple, to party F. Who owns the mineral rights? Would it be party F, since from C on the mineral rights followed the land? Or would it be party D, arguing that once severed from the land deed, the mineral rights are always severed, and they were not specifically included in the sale to E? In this scenario, who owns the mineral rights?
In California, the scenario above would have Party F owning the mineral rights because a grant deed conveys all title held by the Grantor. (Civ. Code section 1105 "A fee simple title is presumed to be intended to pass by a grant of real property, unless it appears from the grant that a lesser estate was intended.") Different states may have a different outcome, however. In your scenario, when Party C holds both surface and minerals, the titles usually merge. But, even if they did not intend them to merge, the fact that Party C sold to D and included the minerals, and then Party D sold to E without mention, would mean that the grant deed from D to E would include the minerals.
Hope this helps!
It does help very much. Thank you!
There was a case in Marshall County of this happening. Court ruled anytime the mineral owner is also the surface owner the rights are married to the property again and must be separated again if ever sold.