In Colorado if there are mineral rights attached to property, do they stay attached when the ownership of the land is transferred using a quiet title process? ( Does new land owner now own the attached mineral rights? )
Comments would be appreciated.
William Matthews
Only the rights of the loosing parties will be transferred.
Yes, any that have not been severed. Also those that have been severed if they are included in the quiet title action. Just as Joan put it, any losing parties interest included in the action.
You need to read the court pleadings VERY carefully. I have seen a court case in which the Court was asked to quiet title to a piece of property, but the way that the legal description in the pleading was worded the Court was asked to render judgment on the ownership of the SURFACE ESTATE only! And I'm pretty sure that the judge can't just say, "Oh, and the minerals go with so-and-so also" if that was not what he was asked to decide in the Original Petition. This is undoubtedly a rare circumstance, but check the wording. Words, even punctuation, can make all the difference in a court case!
Pete,
I think you are very right in what you have said. I have run across another stumbling block,(at least for me).
In the world of oil and gas, could you define "real property". What qualifies as "real property"?
Bill Matthews
Pete Wrench said:
You need to read the court pleadings VERY carefully. I have seen a court case in which the Court was asked to quiet title to a piece of property, but the way that the legal description in the pleading was worded the Court was asked to render judgment on the ownership of the SURFACE ESTATE only! And I'm pretty sure that the judge can't just say, "Oh, and the minerals go with so-and-so also" if that was not what he was asked to decide in the Original Petition. This is undoubtedly a rare circumstance, but check the wording. Words, even punctuation, can make all the difference in a court case!
Hmm, I would refer you to Black's Law dictionary for a proper definition, but in my lay landman world it means "anything associated with real estate." Anything underneath the earth, including minerals and with the possible exception of water, is considered real property (at least in Texas). I don't think in Texas if you buy property above an aquifer you get to drain the aquifer if you want to.
Pete is correct. Many times quiet title suits only cover surface interest as it can be very costly to quiet mineral title.
Pete Wrench said:
You need to read the court pleadings VERY carefully. I have seen a court case i which the Court was asked to quiet title to a piece of property, but the way that the legal description in the pleading was worded the Court was asked to render judgment on the ownership of the SURFACE ESTATE only! And I’m pretty sure that the judge can’t just say, “Oh, and the minerals go with so-and-so also” if that was not what he was asked to decide in the Original Petition. This is undoubtedly a rare circumstance, but check the wording. Words, even punctuation, can make all the difference in a court case!
It doesn't even take common sense that if in the quiet title it says only surface, that it probably only covers surface. Everyone should always read everything that pertains to them especially any legal actions. Quiet title is same price for surface as it is for minerals and a quiet title should only be for what title you are quieting and not interest that belongs to someone else. Had an attorney do a quiet title in North Dakota on mineral interest and he sort of included everyone else's mineral interest, now it has to be redone.
Yes, that's common sense, but in the title that I was researching the court pleading should not have said surface only because the litigants also owned the minerals. So here they go through this whole court case thinking that the judge is going to determine how they are supposed to divide their minerals AND surface and the judge decides only how they divide up their surface. Some attorney made a huge mistake on the paperwork, so now, unless one wants to sign a mineral deed to the other so that their ownership percentages for the minerals match what the judge said their ownership amounts for the surface is, they have to go back to court and start all over again.
Muneral Joe, A quiet title suit will ALWAY cost more to quiet the mineral title unless the minerals have not been severed. There is more research involved, thus more attorney cost.
Mineral Joe said:
It doesn’t ev. en take common sense that if in the quiet title it says only surface, that it probably only covers surface. Everyone should always read everything that pertains to them especially any legal actions. Quiet title is same price for surface as it is for minerals and a quiet title should only be for what title you are quieting and not interest that belongs to someone else. Had an attorney do a quiet title in North Dakota on mineral interest and he sort of included everyone else’s mineral interest, now it has to be redone.
Pete, There can be multiple reasons for not quieting the mineral title when quieting the surface title, but it is customary to quiet title against all severed interest owners when wanting to quiet mineral title. Pete Wrench said:
Yes, that’s common sense, but in the title that I was researching the court pleading should not have said surface only because the litigants also owned the minerals. So here they go through this whole court case thinking that the judge is going to determine how they supposed to divide their minerals AND surface and the judge decides only how they divide up their surface. Some attorney made a huge mistake on the paperwork, so now, unless one wants to sign a mineral deed to the other so that their ownership percentages for the minerals match what the judge said their ownership amounts for the surface is, they have to go back to court and start all over again.
Let me rephrase that. It is customary to quiet title against all severed mineral owners pertaining to the title in question when quieting mineral title.
Joe,
In states with dorment mineral acts, when an attorney files against owners of severed interests that do not pertain to his client’s mineral interest it is usually to adversely posses dorment minerals. If that was not the intent of your suit you should be able to have the order amended.
Joan Downey said:
Muneral Joe, A quiet title suit will ALWAY cost more to quiet the mineral title unless the minerals have not been severed. There is more research involved, thus more attorney cost.
Mineral Joe said:It doesn’t ev. en take common sense that if in the quiet title it says only surface, that it probably only covers surface. Everyone should always read everything that pertains to them especially any legal actions. Quiet title is same price for surface as it is for minerals and a quiet title should only be for what title you are quieting and not interest that belongs to someone else. Had an attorney do a quiet title in North Dakota on mineral interest and he sort of included everyone else’s mineral interest, now it has to be redone.
Yes, that is obvious, when a Court is asked to determine ownership it doesn't just stop at figuring out what the plaintiff and respondent own, it figures out the entire ownership. And yes, I understand that there might be a variety of reasons why only the surface estate was mentioned in a quiet title suit. That is obvious. The ownership of the minerals, for example, might have been decided in a previous court case. Or maybe the ownership of the minerals was never in question. Or maybe neither litigant wanted to incur the additional costs of addressing the minerals. Or maybe whatever other reason. I get that.
But in the particular case that I was researching, the attorney made a mistake in the pleadings because I had to lease the minerals and the plaintiff said he owned the minerals pursuant to the quiet title lawsuit when in fact, I told him after actually reading the court case, the mineral ownership was never even addressed in that court case. So he was infuriated and said that he would have to file another quiet title lawsuit to correct that, but never did, so I proceeded to lease the persons who inherited over the years through probate and through descent and distribution from the person who had last owned the severed minerals according to the Deed Records.
Joan Downey said:
Let me rephrase that. It is customary to quiet title against all severed mineral owners pertaining to the title in question when quieting mineral title.
Pete,
Were all the severed mineral owners named as defendents in the suit?
Just to be clear, a determination of ownership by the court DOES just stop with the plantiff and defendent’s interest. Sometimes it involves determining everyone’s interest in order to determine the parties to the suit’s interest, however even if a non-parties interest is determined, the court will only rule as to the interest of the parties to the suit.r/>
Pete Wrench said:
Yes, that is obvious, when a Court is asked to determine ownership it doesn’t just stop at figuring out what the plaintiff and respondent own, it figures out the entire ownership. And yes, I understand that there might be a variety of reasons why only the surface estate was mentioned in a quiet title suit. That is obvious. The ownership of the minerals, for example, might have been decided in a previous court case. Or maybe the ownership of the minerals was never in question. Or maybe neither litigant wanted to incur the additional costs of addressing the minerals. Or maybe whatever other reason. I get that.
But in the particular case that I was researching, the attorney made a mistake in the pleadings because I had to lease the minerals and the plaintiff said he owned the minerals pursuant to the quiet title lawsuit when in fact, I told him after actually reading the court case, the mineral ownership was never even addressed in that court case. So he was infuriated and said that he would have to file another quiet title lawsuit to correct that, but never did, so I proceeded to lease the persons who inherited over the years through probate and through descent and distribution from the person who had last owned the severed minerals according to the Deed Records.
Joan Downey said:Let me rephrase that. It is customary to quiet title against all severed mineral owners pertaining to the title in question when quieting mineral title.
I think we are probably all right given each of our different scenarios and a quiet title on surface cost no more attorney fees when the attorney didn't even step into the county clerk's office therefore no extra attorney research cost, as a matter of fact no attorney doing quiet title for me have stepped into the clerk's office for it. As for who is included in a quiet title it can depend on what interest is being quieted, the defendant's interest only or what the defendant's interest is in the tract which would include determining everyone's interest in the tract. In the North Dakota I was the buyer and not the Plaintiff and the redo was another plaintiff who was not included yet who's interest was in the original, a stipulation and cross conveyance was offered but they chose to do another quiet title at their cost which included their defendant and ours.
No, in my case, there was NO severed mineral interest at all, there doesn't have to be a severed mineral interest in order to bring a suit to quiet title. A bunch of people, basically from one man's two families, all were claiming partial ownership in a surface/mineral estate after his widow with the life estate had passed away. She lived to be over 100 years old so several generations had come and gone since the old man had passed away intestate. These folks were disputing who owned what, for both surface and minerals, but the court case ended up being about the surface only because the lawyer screwed up the court paperwork, which was awarded to two persons in the suit.
One of them was telling me that he and the other guy also owned the minerals so I should lease the minerals from them only, not anybody else. But when I actually read the court case, the Court decided ownership of the surface only, not the minerals. So I went back to that guy and told him, he said he would initiate another quiet-title lawsuit for the minerals, but after a year he never had done so. So I proceeded to lease the minerals from the persons who were the rightful heirs-at-law based upon probates, as applicable, and descent and distribution, as applicable.
Joan Downey said:
Pete,
Were all the severed mineral owners named as defendents in the suit?
Mineral Joe,
You are right. There are different scenarios here. But in any event, and let me clarify, if minerals have been severed it is going to cost more for attorney fees. 1) More instruments to reviw, whether in tbe court house or at their desk. 2) More persons involved, more contracts to make, more mailings, more time preparing the case, more filings to make, etc etc etc… If you have a good attorney that doesn’t charge you for every minute of his time, and his paralegals time, hold on to him! You’re getting a deal!
/>
Mineral Joe said:
I think we are probably all right given each of our different scenarios and a quiet title on surface cost no more attorney fees when the attorney didn’t even step into the county clerk’s office therefore no extra attorney research. cost, as a matter of fact no attorney doing quiet title for me have stepped into the clerk’s office for it. As for who is included in a quiet title it can depend on what interest is being quieted, the defendant’s interest only or what the defendant’s interest is in the tract which would include determining everyone’s interest in the tract. In the North Dakota I was the buyer and not the Plaintiff and the redo was another plaintiff who was not included yet who’s interest was in the original, a stipulation and cross conveyance was offered but they chose to do another quiet title at their cost which included their defendant and ours.