a landman came to our home with a lease offering us 500 dollars an acre. we own 75 percent mineral in our land and the other 25 percent is own by some 17 other person. she claimed that that the other people had already signed their lease. but since we are the land owners arent we the executer owners of the land there for they can not have a lease before we sign one.
She may be telling the truth, although it doesn't appear to be the most productive way to do it. I don't know the reasoning for trying to lease the smaller interest first owned by 17 individuals, when she could have come to you first and acquired 75% or the larger interest (assuming that you accepted the offer). You being the surface owners does not make you the automatic owners of the executive rights. That needs to be stipulated in the record title. That doesn't necessarily follow. She can lease the broken up 25% interest first, but it seems weird that she would do it that way. The land person could also be lying to you about leasing the others, thinking that you will be more likely to sign if the others have already leased. You could easily check her story by calling one or more of the 17 mineral owners who own the remaining 25% if you know who they are.
I don't think that's what she's asking or inferring, Dave.
Sylvia, it would depend on the language of the mineral reservation. Just because you own the surface, or majority of the minerals, doesn't necessarily give you executive leasing rights. In most cases, it does not.
MMMM. You really added a lot to the discussion. "Just because you own the surface, or majority of the minerals, doesn't necessarily give you the executive rights." Not too much different, if different at all from, "You being the surface owners does not make you the automatic owners of the executive rights. That needs to be stipulated in the record title."
"It would depend on the language of the mineral reservation." Usually, or I had better say always, mineral reservations are a part of the "record title". That is, if the deed is recorded.
Sorry that you couldn't snap to the weird way that the woman land person chose to lease it, if in fact she did already acquire leases from the 17 individual owners.
Hope to go head to head against her and you real soon. I would go after the 75% first, and the busted up 25% second.
Jordan Murray said:
I don't think that's what she's asking or inferring, Dave.
Sylvia, it would depend on the language of the mineral reservation. Just because you own the surface, or majority of the minerals, doesn't necessarily give you executive leasing rights. In most cases, it does not.
thank you guys for the responds
You're welcome.
Good luck to you out there Dave. You have a lot to learn about the business.
Dave Quincy said:
MMMM. You really added a lot to the discussion. "Just because you own the surface, or majority of the minerals, doesn't necessarily give you the executive rights." Not too much different, if different at all from, "You being the surface owners does not make you the automatic owners of the executive rights. That needs to be stipulated in the record title."
"It would depend on the language of the mineral reservation." Usually, or I had better say always, mineral reservations are a part of the "record title". That is, if the deed is recorded.
Sorry that you couldn't snap to the weird way that the woman land person chose to lease it, if in fact she did already acquire leases from the 17 individual owners.
Hope to go head to head against her and you real soon. I would go after the 75% first, and the busted up 25% second.
Jordan Murray said:I don't think that's what she's asking or inferring, Dave.
Sylvia, it would depend on the language of the mineral reservation. Just because you own the surface, or majority of the minerals, doesn't necessarily give you executive leasing rights. In most cases, it does not.
Like I said, I hope I go up against mindsets like hers and yours soon. Her, because she does things bass ackwards. You, because you can't read. Your reply added absolutely nothing to what I advised Sylvia about "executive leasing rights."
Bring it on, or else learn how to read these postings.
Jordan Murray said:
Good luck to you out there Dave. You have a lot to learn about the business.
Dave Quincy said:MMMM. You really added a lot to the discussion. "Just because you own the surface, or majority of the minerals, doesn't necessarily give you the executive rights." Not too much different, if different at all from, "You being the surface owners does not make you the automatic owners of the executive rights. That needs to be stipulated in the record title."
"It would depend on the language of the mineral reservation." Usually, or I had better say always, mineral reservations are a part of the "record title". That is, if the deed is recorded.
Sorry that you couldn't snap to the weird way that the woman land person chose to lease it, if in fact she did already acquire leases from the 17 individual owners.
Hope to go head to head against her and you real soon. I would go after the 75% first, and the busted up 25% second.
Jordan Murray said:I don't think that's what she's asking or inferring, Dave.
Sylvia, it would depend on the language of the mineral reservation. Just because you own the surface, or majority of the minerals, doesn't necessarily give you executive leasing rights. In most cases, it does not.
The executive of a mineral interest already severed from the Surface Estate can lease at any time, he does not have to wait for the surface owner who also has a partial mineral interest to lease.