I know this is long, but it's rather complicated, or at least I think so:
Apache is producing my minerals in Texas, and I believe they won't pay me my royalties simply because they don't want to spend the $$ to search ALL the pertinent title documents on file that would satisfy their Requirement. So instead, Apache's title atty's just "punt" the issue, telling me to get a quitclaim deed from another (potential) mineral owner, or, "..in the alternative.." that other potential mineral owner gets a quitclaim from me. Which basically would resolve the issue for Apache without Apache having to spend any money on it.
Yes, it's kind of complicated because we own minerals in different depth horizons under the same surface description. But we also all have copies of the one conveyance document that Apache's title atty's say, and all parties agree, created this issue when the mineral ownership was divided into different depth horizons. I was getting paid my mineral royalties for 15 years from wells that were drilled into my depth horizons from way back in the 1980's. Then Apache created new oil leases by subdividing the existing oil lease surface boundries. They drilled new wells on these newly created leases and completed them into my depth horizons, but they won't pay me my royalties from the new leases because their title atty's say they can't tell what I/me, and the other party actually owns, due to that conveyance doc from 22 years ago that divided the mineral interest (a mineral interest that 2 years later would become mine) into different depth horizons. Apache's title atty's also say they can't be sure the signatory on the previous owner of my minerals, a corporation, had the authority to make that conveyance for the corporation in the first place. So do I have to go to that corporation, compel or pay them to spend the time to investigate who that signatory was 22 years ago, and give me an affidavit? Even if I did, Apache's title atty's say they don't know exactly what was being conveyed. But that is simply because Apache's title attorneys did not spend the time, and $$, to actually READ all the terms and conditions in all those OGML's from back in the 1950's and 1970s' to determine exactly WHAT was being conveyed 22 years ago. Maybe my "0.00somthing.." interest is just too small for them to waste any time and $$ on to prove up?!?!
Do I have to do Apache's title atty's job for them? Is there any way I can COMPEL Apache to spend the time necessary to do their job - - read the terms and conditions of those old OGML's which would determine just what was being conveyed by that corporation 22 years ago? Is there anything I can do short of hiring an attorney and suing Apache? I've been in email and telephone and even Certified Letter communication with Apache over this for two years and they just keep brushing me off.
My heartfelt Thanks go out to anyone who actually took time to read this.
Hi, b clark -
It is my understanding that you cannot compel any company to revisit an issue their Title Attorney has already made a Requirement regarding, nor can you force them to "cure" any ailments to your title.
What "curative work" companies do is as a courtesy, it is not required of them. Well, they may do what is necessary to protect their best interests, but if they prepare documents and affidavits and that sort of thing to straighten out your title, that's just out of courtesy. It's been industry practice for many years, but it is not required by law.
I'd need to see the documents and title opinions to have a better idea as to what the issues are, but it sounds to me like If you received royalities from production from your depths for years prior to now, then the prior Title Opinion(s) should have been relied upon in preparing Title Opinions for the new production.
Do you have any of the subject documents and Title Opinions? At least the Recitals and Requirements on the issues from their Title Opinion?
If all they require is that you and the other mineral owner quitclaim any interest in each others' depths, why don't you just do that?
And, if the corporation from 22 years ago warranted title, they are required to property cure any title issues from their prior paperwork. If the signatory was an officer of the corporation, it would be a simple thing for them to locate his or her's being authorized by a Corporate Resolution - even from 22 years ago. If the signatory signed as Power of Attorney, they should have filed one of record in the County Records prior to the date of the signing. If they did not, it would be a simple thing to obtain a certified copy of the Power of Attorney from a County where it WAS filed of record and file it in the County where the subject lands are located.
Landmen do that sort of thing all the time.
Hope this helps -
Charles Emery Tooke III
Certified Professional Landman
Fort Worth, Texas
Unfortunately, there are many poorly drafted deeds which do not spell out exactly what is being assigned. It is the responsibility of the mineral owner to get any title issues cleared up. You cannot sue Apache as it did not create the problem. Your reference to the leases makes me wonder If the corporation retained any interest in either the minerals or in the revenues from the pre-existing leases. You should to take all the relevant deeds and the Drilling Title Opinion to an oil and gas title attorney to determine exactly what you need to do. Perhaps all parties - ie the corporation and all the current mineral owners - can file a stipulation of interest as to what is owned by each party.
First off, check the Unclaimed Property to see if they are reporting any funds due to you or the previous owner. If they are issuing payments in your name or an ancestors name, they kind-of already decided that the owner is in that name.
Other than that, give us a county and names to search. Yours, the person you inherited the property from, and the company/person who assigned your ancestors the interest.
For many counties in Texas I have access to documents at no charge. It may be easy to look at and after interpretation, one of us on the forum could possibly point you in the right direction or to the right person to help you with this issue.
Thank you all for your help and advice, esp. Mr. Tooke since his answer was first. From Mr. Tooke's answer I learned that Apache is just doing what their title company told them to do concerning my mineral interest, that being that my decimal interest for the newly carved-off leases be held in suspense until I gave that other party a quitclaim, or they gave me a quitclaim. Unfortunately, Apache has done a terrible job of communicating this to me, because for a year and a half all Apache told me was that I needed to give that other party a quitclaim deed for all my interest in those new leases, without ever telling me exactly why. And they told me I had to quitclaim only verbally, never in writing. I have a slew of emails that I sent to Apache starting in Dec 2013 asking them "Why?", to which they never answered. That is until a couple months ago when someone at Apache finally sent me a written copy of my "Requirement", and that was not until after I learned of the existence of the term, "Requirement", and after I had specifically asked Apache to send it to me. As result of Mr. Tooke's answer, I gave up on trying to force Apache to do anything to resolve this and instead I contacted the Title Company who generated the Updated Division Order Title Opinion for Apache on those new leases (their letterhead was on the Requirement that Apache sent me..). It seems Apache's title company read only the later documents filed in the Clerk's Office concerning all these leases in question, but did not apparently read the original leases from the 1950's. I got copies of those original OGMLs from the Clerk's Office and I believe the language of the terms and conditions of those original leases will convince Apache's title company attorneys that the previous owner of my minerals knew exactly what they were conveying when they conveyed away their minerals in the shallow lease only, while retaining their minerals in the deeper lease, which they conveyed to me several years later. And that the descriptive language in their conveyance of their interest in the shallow lease minerals is plenty specific, in light of the original OGML description language. Hopefully this will persuade Apache's title company to change their mind and void the quitclaim Requirement they placed on me in their title opinion. I've sent everything to the title company and I'm waiting for their reply. If I fail to convince the title company attorneys that the language in the conveyance deed of the shallow mineral interest is specific enough, I believe I can convince the current Grantee of my previous owner's conveyance of their shallow minerals, and get a quitclaim from that Grantee on those newly carved-off leases in the deeper zones. I'll update this post when something new happens. Again, thank you all for your advice.