I am new to the site and would appreciate your input. I recently received a royalty check for a little over one dollar in connection with an oil, gas and mineral lease agreement (Anderson County, TX) that was allegedly agreed to by my deceased father. I requested a copy of the lease agreement from the company that issued the check. The lease agreement contains a statement by a notary acknowledging that my father signed the instrument. However, the actual lease only contains my father's name in type-written form with no signature. Similarly, the notary statement is not signed by the notary and there is no notary seal. Instead the notary's name appears in typewritten form. My father apparently inherited this property from his great-grandfather. The issue is that my father was unable to read or write and I find it difficult to believe that he would sign a contract that he could neither read or understand. I know that an unsigned lease in today's world would be difficult to validate. However, I wonder if this sort of lease was legally sufficent back then. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. FYI, I was able to obtain a recorded copy of the lease which mirrors the copy that I received from the Lessee's rep.
Term: 2 years plus “as long thereafter as oil, gas, sulphur, metal, ore or other mineral is produced from said land or land with which said land is pooled hereunder”
The lease was definitely recorded without the signature. I received a copy directly from the court clerk's office.
Dillon said:
What is the date on the lease?
What is the date of recording?
What is the amt of land & term of the lease?
Are you certain the County Clerk accepted it for recording without a Notary's signature?
You do not have photostatic original copy of the lease. "Back in the day" before xerox machines, the county clerks had a number of "recorders" whose job was to transcribe the original document into the records by re-typing the whole thing.
It has been years since I have dealt with the rules governing the transfer of properties by illiterates, but if your father was unable to read, I think that the acknowledgment is faulty because it did not state that the lease was read to him in the presence of two witnesses. It seems that is also flawed as is the requirement that it be witnessed by two people. Clearly, the examining attorney had no reason to suspect that the Lessor could not read and did not make a requirement of it.
Likely, the oil company has adversely possessed the leasehold estate and the Statute of Limitations have long passed.
Thank you so much Buddy. Not good news but at least I now have an idea of what is going on.
Buddy Cotten said:
Dear Ms. Drew,
You do not have photostatic original copy of the lease. "Back in the day" before xerox machines, the county clerks had a number of "recorders" whose job was to transcribe the original document into the records by re-typing the whole thing.
It has been years since I have dealt with the rules governing the transfer of properties by illiterates, but if your father was unable to read, I think that the acknowledgment is faulty because it did not state that the lease was read to him in the presence of two witnesses. It seems that is also flawed as is the requirement that it be witnessed by two people. Clearly, the examining attorney had no reason to suspect that the Lessor could not read and did not make a requirement of it.
Likely, the oil company has adversely possessed the leasehold estate and the Statute of Limitations have long passed.