Heirship?

Oil and Gas Leasing Help
1

I deleted my original post, as more has come to light. My Grandfather. Purchased 685 acres in Culberson, he was married to my Grandmother and they had 4 children (3 girls,1 boy). A so called Aunt lived with them during the 1920/1930 Census. When my Grandfather died, he left his 3 daughters the land, his son the money in the bank and the so called Aunt the furniture.

When my real Aunt probated his Will, she put a clause in the Will to include the above named 5 children in the ownership of the land it it sold or leased for more than $3,000.00 and of course it has many times over. So, for many years the so called Aunt was included in the Lease Agreements and received money, however, never paid her share of the Taxes. We have found two Heirship Affidavits saying she is a sister! However, she was never adopted! The Will is somewhat Squirrely! Did my Aunt have the right to include the so called Aunt in the Land?

Meanwhile she the so called Aunt passed away without a Will and her heirs came forward claiming her share of the land. Now mind you she is a cousin not an Aunt! When doing research we find out that our Grandfather had another child who is still alive!

Oh my…what do we do now? Is this so called Aunt really entitled to the land or should it have reverted back to the original 4 children (who are all now deceased and and have heirs)? And now what do we do with the new family member?

Complicated to say the least! The land just leased to Panther Energy, and they are now doing the search on the Title so that they can commence with Drilling!

2

Consult a GOOD title attorney!

3

I agree with what Tom said. Wade Caldwell who responded to your previous post is an O&G Atty. Maybe he could help you out or knows of someone who could.

Tom Ed Moore said:

Consult a GOOD title attorney!

4

This is extremely confusing, with alot of information missing. From what I can tell from your description, Grandfather DID have a Will and it WAS offered for Probate in Court. If that is true, if he survived Grandmother and was married to her at the time she died, if she had no Will or did have a Will and left her Estate to Grandfather or to the three daughters, then Grandfather's Will MUST be honored and the three daughters would own the land and any minerals that Grandpa owned in that land at the time that HE died.

Now it is possible, although very uncommon, that at the time of inheritance the three daughters, if they all AGREED, could have filed paperwork with the Probate Court sharing Grandfather's bequest to them with the son and the so-called Aunt (what you incorrectly referred to as putting "a clause in the Will"). More likely, after the Probate case was closed, they signed a Partition Deed or Stipulation Agreement and recorded it in the County Property Records putting the public on notice that their 1/3 shares in the land would be shared with the other two persons so that each person owned an undivided 1/5 interest in the land.

Regarding Grandfather's other child who is still alive, my opinion is that he is SOL. I don't see how he has a claim since he did not receive the property in Grandfather's Will and the Will WAS probated. The other child WOULD have a claim if Grandfather died intestate (withOUT a Will).

You say the land just leased to Panther Energy. Exactly WHO signed the Mineral Lease? It sounds like the executive rights might have been reserved somewhere back in title and the five persons have a Non-Executive Mineral Interest (NEMI). Again, there is alot of critical information missing, and you need to consult a legal professional on a variety of matters in order to get the best advice.

5

Pete's synopsis is spot on!

6

Pete, Thank you so much for your reply. My Grandmother passed away in 1939 without a Will, my Grandfather purchased the land in 1942 and he passed away with a Will in 1945. My Grandparents never divorced. The only thing signed by my Grandfather’s children was a Declaration in 1977 granting all parties (the four siblings and the so called Aunt ownership in the property). We own the surface rights only. I have contacted an attorney in El Paso and am waiting to hear back from him.

7

Was your Grandfather married at the time of his death? And what is a "Declaration in 1977 ?" And who is "we," as in "we own the surface rights?"

8

My Grandfather never remarried! Who are you?

9

I'm a guy trying to help you figure out the correct answers to your questions. That's why you came on here, isn't it? If so, then please say what is the "Declaration" that you mentioned? Is that something that was in writing or was it verbal? If it was in writing, was it filed at the County Clerk's Office and was it by chance something called a Partition Deed or a Stipulation Agreement or just an Agreement? I am trying to give you the correct answers but have to ask questions of my own along the way in order to meet the objective.

10

Just to clarify my previous statement, my opinion is that the "Grandfather's other child who is still alive" is SOL as far as inheriting directly from Grandfather. Grandfather's other child who is still alive might have acquired an interest through Grandfather's Probate if all of Grandfather's actual heirs (the three daughters) consented, and he might have acquired an interest through a regular conveyance from the three daughters in the form of a Partition Deed or Agreement of some sort AFTER they inherited from Grandfather. More information is needed.

Pete Wrench said:

Regarding Grandfather's other child who is still alive, my opinion is that he is SOL. I don't see how he has a claim since he did not receive the property in Grandfather's Will and the Will WAS probated. The other child WOULD have a claim if Grandfather died intestate (withOUT a Will).

11

LOL . That reminds me of a line from the movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. "Who are those guys?"

No one here can give you the answers that you are looking for unless they read the instruments that affect the title. At least you are learning about some of the issues. I know it can be intimidating when someone throws legal terms at you that you aren't familiar with. Good luck.



Cyndy Davis said:

My Grandfather never remarried! Who are you?
12

My family and I inherited 685 acres in Culberson County. The document I am referring to is called a Declaration, “whereas the undersigned collectively own the surface estate of the following land in Culberson, etc” and was signed by my grandfathers 4 children and the so called aunt and filed in the County Clerks Office. Thank you all so much sharing such valuable information.

13

It sounds like they were trying to stipulate or clear up the interests for the title searcher. Those are as good as gold if they contain the requisite cross-conveyance language.

Generally, no one can substitute their will for the will of the testator. If that is done while the testator is still living, it is called "undue influence", and is one of the legal grounds to challenge or invalidate a will.

It is also illegal to tamper with, or change a will after the death of a testator. No one can correct your version of what your aunt did or didn't do, but she could not legally alter the terms of the will, or substitute hers for the will of the testator, either before or after his death. It is considered undue influence, among other things.

You mentioned that you are seeking legal advice. Great move.

14

Obviously, nobody on this Web site can say for certain who owns the Subject Property without performing a full title review, in person, at the relevant Courthouse(s), which could take days or weeks or, in rare cases, months. Anybody coming here doesn't expect that from us, they just want to pose some questions and scenarios and get some free advice. So there is no need to state the obvious.

But it doesn't take a rocket scientist of a landman to figure out most heirships based upon asking some simple but important questions and getting some simple answers from somebody with knowledge of the facts, without ever looking at an instrument! That's what professional landmen do, for example, when we create something called an Affidavit of Heirship: we ask questions, the person with knowledge of the facts provides answers, and we rely on those answers to determine the heirship of the deceased and therefore the ownership of the Subject Property. Out of the dozens, if not hundreds, of Affidavits of Heirship I have created over the years, I never have had a client say that they wanted me to collect certified copies of the instruments corroborating the statements in the AOH (such as birth, marriage, and death certificates), although I did do that on my own initiative one time and saved my client a bundle of money.

We don't provide legal advice and we don't provide title opinions on this Web site, we rely upon statements made to us and offer suggestions and advice based upon professional experience. Go troll somewhere else.

Dave Quincy said:

LOL . That reminds me of a line from the movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. "Who are those guys?"

No one here can give you the answers that you are looking for unless they read the instruments that affect the title. At least you are learning about some of the issues. I know it can be intimidating when someone throws legal terms at you that you aren't familiar with. Good luck.

15

I highly recommend that you consult an attorney board certified in property law, or at least with tons of experience in property law. What caught my eye was the 1977 "Declaration" because it is described as if it could be a stipulation and cross-conveyance between the 4 children and the so-called Aunt. If it is, then whatever specific rights are named in the granting clause got distributed among the 5 of them in whatever proportions set out in the clause and you might have difficulty in challenging it. Hopefully, the only rights named are surface rights. If it says "all right, title and interest" then you're going to have a problem with the mineral rights also. But I agree with the responses that say that more information is needed to figure out who owns what--but if the well comes in a barn-burner, be prepared to hit the courthouse steps with a quiet-title action. Good luck, and I hope you find a barracuda attorney to help get this straightened out.

16

Ok…I have contacted 4 recommended lawyers, and I guess that everyone is so busy they never call me back. Can anyone recommend a lawyer close to Culberson county. I am posting a copy of the Declaration… 1418-image.jpg (425 KB)

17

Max C. Olivas was my Aunt’s husband and he inherited it! …and thanks Pete for your thoughts and valuable information! Do you know a barracuda attorney? The minerals in Section 36 are owned by the State of Texas, subject to the Relinquishment Act of 1919. Leases must be obtained from the tract surface owners, on a General Land Office Relinquishment Act Lease form, acting as Agent for the State of Texas and approved by the General Land Office of Texas. The Surface Owner and the State of Texas share, one-half (1/2) to each, all lease bonus, royalties, rentals, etc. My big question is did these other heirs who inherited the Mayagoitia share inherit the royalities also?

18

Cyndy,

You are exactly right about the Relinquishment Act of 1919. Therefore, if they inherited the land, they also inherited 1/2 of the minerals. That's how that works. You can't own minerals without owning the land on these tracts and you can't own the land without owning the minerals. You either have both or neither.

At least this is my understanding, but I would run that by an attorney (which it appears you are trying to do).

19

I thought that these must be Relinquishment lands, that was the only scenario I could think of in which the State of Texas might have a mineral interest in the Section. And I guessed that since he owned a life estate in the Section, Max C. Olivas probably was the surviving spouse and heir-at-law of your Aunt who is actually your cousin (AWIYC). So I guessed right on both but needed confirmation. She probably died intestate, without a Will, and the life estate probably was created through the laws of descent and distribution. When you first mentioned the Declaration, I thought that your AWIYC signed it, but obviously now looking at the instrument I know that's not true. Presumably, your AWIYC acquired her interest through the "clause" that your real Aunt "added" to your Grandfather's Will. Could you possibly upload that portion of the Will for inspection?

Also, I just re-read your original post. If any Affidavit of Heirship is incorrect in any way, I would have somebody knowledgeable about the true marital history, children, death, and probate of the Decedent file another Affidavit of Heirship at the County Clerk's Office. The title coming out of your Grandfather should not be affected at all since there WAS a Probate case, which takes precedence over an Affidavit of Heirship. But I personally would want to clarify the heirship in the Deed Records if it were my Grandfather.

Regarding the unpaid taxes, presumably property taxes, that is an interesting situation. I have had one situation like that come up before, where one heir was paying the property taxes for one of the other heirs who was refusing to pay their fair share. My guess is that you would not have standing to sue the heirs who are not paying their fair share, absent a written agreement of some kind. I guess you could stop paying their share of the taxes and if a Tax Suit is initiated against them try to buy their share on the Courthouse steps. This sounds like another question for the barracuda lawyer. No, I don't know one, I try to limit my interaction with them, even for social purposes.

Regarding your "big question," yes, I believe that if the heirs and heirs-at-law of your AWIYC are rightful fractional owners of the land then they are rightful owners of their pro rata share of 1/2 of the bonuses, royalties, etc., as well.

1 Like
20

Hi again Cyndy. TGIF. It's 5 o'clock somewhere. Okay, I dug a little deeper for you. It looks like the Panther leases were in fact taken pursuant to Mineral Classified land as you suggested. There are several of them, and they are all on GLO lease forms as you would expect. Most, if not all, are in Volume 114 of the O & G Records of Culberson County, Texas. They were taken in July of 2014 and have 3 year terms. Some of the lessors are easy to match to the Declaration. For example, Alice E. Lopez @ 114/88. Robert Ortiz @ 114/96, Joe Ray Ortiz @ 114/104, Amalia M. Cox ? @114/113, possible heirs of Margete Pollock Ortiz. The heirs of Robt. L. Pollock were also easy to match: Roberta Martha Chew @ 114/45, Francis Mitchell @ 114/53, Helen Mays @ 114/62, Daniel Pollock @ 114/620, and Benita Varas @ 114/71. Lucille Sepulveda, Trustee @ 114/37 is a probable heir of Benita Sepulveda. M. Ramona Johnson is @ 114/79. There were several lessors who I really didn't know which interest that they came out of, but I am sure you probably do. Some may be the heirs of Esther. More Panther leases located were Michael Rene Gallardo @ 114/121, Victor Gallardo @ 114/130, Jorge or George Gallardo @ 114/139, Irene Guerrero @ 114/147, Virginia Skolnik @ 114/155, Antonio E. Busmante, a/k/a Tony @ 114/164, Eric Bustamante @ 114/173, Gloria Orona @ 114/80, Paul Bustamante @ 114/189.

I am not alleging that these were all of them, just the ones I was able to locate doing a cursory search. It does look like Panther took the time and effort to locate and lease the heirs, taking off from the Declaration.

I did have an opportunity to peruse the acknowledgments of the Declaration, and noticed that they were scattered to L.A. and other points west. I think Nevada was also on there. This could present a problem for anyone you hire, if in fact anyone ever calls you back. The search will not be centralized to Culberson County etc. etc. If there are any probate issues, they could easily fall under a cold case heading since it was your Grandaddy. Statute of Limitations problems could also arise regarding attacking the validity of the will. The Declaration could have been worded better and been made more clear regarding the interest of the State and Mineral Classified lands, but of course Cousin Esther did sign it, and was a party to it. The cross-conveyance language appears adequate.

I am starting to get a bad feeling about your chances of showing that Esther's heirs were not rightfully leased by Panther. You might want to table it or put it on the back burner. That is free advice, and you usually get what you pay for. If you do hire somebody, you might provide them with the above references, and clarify for them who exactly Esther's heirs are. I think I could figure out which ones are not heirs of Esther.

Other than that, I don't think I can do anything else for you. The good Wrench did a decent job of flushing out more information from you. He and others, obviously, are free to take it from here. I am going to bow out. It was a tough work week, but I don't mind doing some pro bono work here to help people like yourself out. Good luck, and I hope it all works out for you.

1 Like