We hold 1/14 of many different mineral right tracts. Over time I suspect that the other owners have passed along and a few may have not had any heirs. What happens to their share? Does it re-distribute to the surviving heirs? - ex. making it now a 1/13th share to us?
Probably depended on the individual cases: did they have wills? If not, on law of succession in the state where the properties lie, I believe.
If they had valid wills, and they are probated, their interests will pass to the beneficiaries under the terms of the will. They may leave it to a maid or a university if they have no children. If they die without a will, their interest will pass according to laws of descent and distribution. If the rest of the 1/14th mineral owners are related to you, it is possible that you could get an additional piece of the pie.
AccidentalOwner:
What happens to the interest depends on a few factors. 1) What state the tracts are in. 2) Did the owner(s) have a will that was probated? 3) Was the property community or separate property?
Even if they had a will and it was probated, it could still be distributed per the the respective state's laws of descent and distribution.
That is a minor point, and also a stretch. In genera,l if the will was "valid" as stated, the state will not go out of its way to substitute its will, or laws of descent and distribution, for the will of the testator. There could be constitutional challenges by the beneficiaries. It would violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
However, since you threw that out there, why don't you give some examples of how the will of the Testator might be ignored? What were you getting at?
If the will does not cover property owned by the deceased and the will does not contain a residue clause, then the property left out of or not covered by the will would pass by descent and distribution.
Could they sue the drafting attorney for malpractice?
That doesn't occur very often.
I can't speak to the malpractice question. You are right. It doesn't happen very often, but the purpose here was to give as much information as possible to help the person asking the question.
In reference to your previous reply that this is a "minor point". That depends on the size of the tract and whether production ever happens. On a tract that never gets leased and produced, yes it is minor/irrelevant. That said, AccidentalOwner did not specify the size of the tract. I assume that if you owned 1/14 of a 1000 acre tract of minerals then it could be a very big deal if in fact it worked out that the minerals do in fact pass by descent and distribution to you due to the lack of a residue clause. It isn't likely, but knowing this fact could change the outcome/ownership significantly, and I would want to know of this seemingly "minor point".
No, I would have to disagree. It was a minor point and an extreme aberration.
I'm going to have to go back and see if the purpose here is stated, whereby the goal of everyone who replies is to give as much information as possible. I know it has never been my stated purpose.
The mention of wills and intestate succession statutes served very well to answer his question. Throwing things at him from left field like missing residuary clauses serves no useful purpose, other than to confuse the issue.
It is true that inventories attached to probate proceedings are often incomplete. However, it is very rare that a residuary clause is not included, and even rarer still, where the residuary estate passes according to the laws of descent and distribution of a particular state, where a valid will has been probated.
I would venture to guess, that before that would even happen, a lawsuit would be filed by the named beneficiaries in the will attempting to clarify the intent of the testator. That's why people make wills in the first place, so that they can devise their property as they see fit, and not how the state chooses to distribute it.
Mr. Quincy -
My purpose here was to reply to the question, and was not directed to your response to the question.
Your opinion of whether it is a minor point is irrelevant. The opinion of the questioner is the only opinion that really matters.
When I stated, "the purpose here was to give as much information as possible to help the person asking the question.", I was speaking only of my purpose and my intent. I don't pretend to know everyone else's intent when they reply. Furthermore you should spend your time focusing on whether what is said is correct or not. Not whether you think it is important to bring up.
I do not wish to continue to discuss opinion with you any further as I have more important issues to tackle.
Everyone - thanks for your responses. I totally understand that each state will have it's own procedures and interpretations. The question is just a curiosity; from time to time it seems that some Landmen have derived an (ever increasing) net acreage and I was simply trying grasp with how that may be possible.
Thanks and Cheers,
Accidental Owner
Check the unclaimed property every year for your state. Also, check the rules for disposal of unclaimed property.
It also could be that some of them know how to add, and some don't. You could always ask them how they came up with their nets.
You're welcome. I hope that you understood that most of the replies that you got were based on general rules of law. I apologize if anyone tried to throw you a curve.
Cheers to you as well.
It's 5 o'clock somewhere.