Executive Rights, Looking For Advice

General Mineral Rights Discussion
1

My mother was approached by a landman in regards to the property listed below, he told her that the property has already been leased out and they were ready to drill on it. But due to a new landman on the project and bad lawyering it was skipped that my mother owned the executive rights. He said that it would be in her good faith to go ahead and sign over the executive rights. So I decided to do a little research on the property and according to the Railroad Commission of Texas 2 wells have already been drilled on the property. Below is the deed record on the property, I have changed the names/county around just so everythings not out there. But in this record my grandparents are John B Henry and Mildred Ann Henry. My mother is the successor now since they have passed and has never signed any type of agreement or quitclaim, sorry for the long post just don’t know where to go from here. Please let me know what you think.

COMMENT NO. 2: By instrument dated November 13, 1944 ( Vol. 157, P. 130), Minnie Dow conveyed the Subject Lands and other lands to John B. Henry and wife, Mildred Ann Henry, reserving a 1/2 mineral interest but conveying the full executive leasing right over full mineral ownership in the tracts. By deed dated February 5, 1946 (Vol. 167, P. 115) the Henrys conveyed the surface estate and a 1/2 mineral interest in the same lands to Luke Rouse and wife, Ivy Rouse. This deed failed to convey the executive right over the 1/2 non-executive mineral interest reserved by Minnie Dow (NEM1), and the Materials Examined include no further transfers by the Henrys. The Henrys remain the record owners of the executive leasing right over NEM1, but the Materials Examined do not include a current lease covering the Subject Lands from the Henrys or their successors in interest. As a result, the current owners of NEM1 could take the position that their interest in the Subject Lands remains unleased.

REQUIREMENT NO. 2: Obtain and agreement executed by the successors in interest to John B. Henry and wife, Mildred Ann Henry, whereby they quitclaim all interest in The Subject Lands to the lessor of the Subject Lease.

Satisfaction of these requirements should be accomplished by two quitclaims from the Henrys or their successors in interest. The grantees of one quitclaim should be Patrick Logan Hamm and Patricia Ann Hamm, convering the following tract.

50 acres, more or less in the I.&G.N.R.N. Survey X-2, A-220, I.&G.N.R.N. Survey X-1, A-219, and the Phillip Lowery Survey, A-347, Montgomery County, Texas, being 80 acres Lots 23 through 34 of the B.E Norvell Subdivision, according to a plat recorded at Vol. 36, P. 501, Montgomery County Map Records, being the same 80 acres described in deed dated February 5, 1946 from John B. Henry, et ux., to Luke Rouse, et ux., recorded at Vol. 167, P. 115; SAVE AND EXCEPT 50 acres described in deed dated October 26, 1948 from Luke Rouse, et ux., to J.E.Aaron, et ux., recorded at Vol. 196, P. 234, Montgomery County Deed Records.

2

I personally would not sign anything until I had someone I trust to review the Deed in 167/115. I would want a second opinion as to what it says rather than rely on what is in the Title Opinion.

The Landman is just doing the job he was hired to do but unfortunatly it appears you have already caught him in an untruth. It is not your mothers fault that someone did sloppy work. If she signs anything, she should be compensated.

Charles Cunningham

3

Dear Mr. Wilson,

Mr. Cunningham has certainly provided excellent advice. It would be an odd situation that somehow the executive rights were specifically reserved, but odd things happen all of the time.

Prudence would insist that you conduct an independent examination (or have some examine) the interpretation of the author of the Opinion. i.e. Look at the documents carefully on the portion of the chain of title that he has referenced.

If you do indeed own the executive rights with no underlying mineral interest, I would advise you to dispose of that responsibility. Too much personal risk with no reward.

Best,

Buddy Cotten


Charles Cunningham said:

I personally would not sign anything until I had someone I trust to review the Deed in 167/115. I would want a second opinion as to what it says rather than rely on what is in the Title Opinion.

The Landman is just doing the job he was hired to do but unfortunatly it appears you have already caught him in an untruth. It is not your mothers fault that someone did sloppy work. If she signs anything, she should be compensated.

Charles Cunningham

4

Thanks Charles/Buddy, I appreciate your advise as we will not sign anything yet I will start to do a little more research. Have either of you heard of a case like this, being they have already drilled 2 wells on the property.

5

I agree about reviewing 157/130 and 167/115, and about running a full title examination. The EXACT wording of the Deeds must be reviewed, can you post them by chance? For example, did the Deed specifically state "We convey the Surface Estate and an undivided 1/2 mineral interest" but nothing else, or words to that effect? If so, then none of the Executive Rights were conveyed. Also, one would have to run out the Henry ownership to determine whether or not their NEMI was ever sold, and possibly RETURNED to the chain of title. I would also want to read the exact wording of 157/130, wherein the executive rights allegedly were conveyed. Too many unanswered questions without reviewing documents.