Hi all,
I’m trying to help my family sort out a royalty issue and would appreciate advice. In 2012, my parents signed an oil & gas lease for 97.12 acres in Labor 18, League 18, Wichita CSL, Hockley Co., TX. I have a fully executed lease and documents showing it was pooled by Occidental (OXY) in a 2013 Form P-17 with Tract 100 (Labor 15, League 28, Hood CSL) — Lease No. 03780, which has been continuously producing ever since.
However, OXY never updated ownership records after my grandmother passed, and royalties were sent to the wrong address and ended up in suspense. My parents have never been paid.
Our net mineral interest is 0.062499999, and I’ve calculated that the pooled leases have produced ~20 million barrels of oil and ~17 million MCF of gas since 2013.
Questions:
Shouldn’t we have been receiving royalties if the pooled lease was producing?
Can they argue the lease expired even though it was pooled and producing?
How do I estimate what’s owed?
Who do I talk to — a landman, attorney, or the RRC?
I’m a geologist, not a landman or lawyer, and I’m trying to get my family the compensation they deserve. Thanks in advance for any insight!
Was your grandmother ever in pay? Have you sent the recorded probate and/or deeds to Oxy proving that your parents now have title? Oxy will not watch the deed records for changes. You need to discuss with Oxy’s land department and division order department and find out what they need. Best to send by certified mail. RRC has zero to do with royalties so do not contact them. An oil and gas attorney can also help you.
Yes, the affidavit of heirship was sent to OXY for the Labor 18, League 18 tract. My grandmother had dementia and passed without a will, so settling her estate across multiple counties in Texas and New Mexico has been an interesting process. That said—after doing a deep dive into her paperwork again—I think I’ve figured out what’s going on. The P-17 form that was included with the Labor 18, League 18 documentation actually belongs to the Tract 100, Labor 15, League 28 lease, which turns out to be a completely separate tract that my family didn’t know she owned mineral rights for—until last night. So the affidavit of heirship currently on file with OXY is for League 18, which never went into production. We’ll now need to have League 28 added to the affidavit in order to receive royalties.
Have you looked to see if any of your grandmother’s interests have been escheated to the state of her last known address? If TX, I’ve had some success getting fund out of them under similar circumstances. Good luck!
It is a transfer to a State Unclaimed Property Division and not escheat, which is a common mistake. If you look up the definition of escheat, you will see the difference.
Because your first filing created a problem, you should have an attorney prepare a new affidavit of heirship. Based on facts you are not an heir. Your preparation of the affidavit of heirship for your parent who is the heir is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
What problem did the first filing create? You clearly did not graduate from law school, based on the rest of your post. Its hard to do given that Im 78, but the unauthorized practice of law at the end made me chuckle, thank you for the laugh today
The problem was that the affidavit was incomplete at best and without seeing it, there is no way to know whether it was prepared properly, which has made it necessary to prepare a second one. As I recall the facts, the geologist prepared the affidavit of heirship for a parent, and she is not an attorney. The affidavit of heirship is a legal document. Under the laws of most states, her action would constitute the unauthorized practice of law. Or do you think she should start preparing estate planning documents too for her family?
So, you clearly did not go to law school. The affidavit was incomplete due to a missing legal desciprtion, has nothing to do with how it was prepared or an attorney being involced which is not required. An affidavit of heirship requires a 3rd party, which the poster is, simply stating that they know and are familiar with the family history of the grandparents and that mom or dad was an heir to grandma. Youre acting as if the poster is commiting a crime or as you say, “unauthorized practice of law” by filing said affidavit which I have no idea where in the world you came up with that and it is quite simply, laughable. No, I dont think the poster should go in to estate planning nor do I think you should be handing out this advice that others may read and run with.
You excel at making assumptions. You have no knowledge whether the initial affidavit was correctly prepared or not. Because there is a need to do another affidavit, the recommendation to have an attorney prepare it is sound advice. If the poster was an heir herself, she could prepare an affidavit of heirship in which was listed as an heir, but she is not an heir based on her facts so preparing a document that has legal consequences for someone else is the unauthorized practice of law. Will anyone report her on these facts or would the bar in most states care-the answer is no.
Serious question, have you ever seen an affidavit of heirship? A college student could prepare one. She already stated that she left off the legal needed in the AOH, I dont know why you continue to harp on the prepared doc, if she gave all the info she had and paid an attorney to do it, the same result would have happened.
“If the poster was an heir herself, she could prepare an affidavit of heirship in which was listed as an heir, but she is not an heir based on her facts so preparing a document that has legal consequences for someone else is the unauthorized practice of law”
This tells me all I need to know that Im not making any assumptions about your “legal expertise”. A direct heir (her mom or dad) can not file an AOH that any company or court will accept. That my friend, would be “unauthorized practice of law” as you love to say.
Suggest you read Section 203.002 of Texas Estates Code regarding what should be included in a Texas affidavit of heirship. You will see it requires one affiant. In practice, third parties require two corroborating witnesses sign the affidavit. The preparation of the base affidavit with the two corroborating affidavits to induce third parties to rely on it to pay royalties is the preparation of a legal document and is the unauthorized practice of law. It is clear there is not a great deal we can agree on so this will be my last response on this issue.
@Bob77 a question. If a person is provided and completes a form AOH by inserting information they believe to be correct and executes as the information being the same, then is this the unauthorized practice of law?
I do not see where the poster said they prepared or executed the AOH, just that it contained the wrong legal description. If this is the case, does the current AOH meet notice requirements since TX is a Grantor/Grantee index system. Many wills filed of record for the same purpose do not contain a property inventory, so is the only issue clarity of the document?
a question. If a person is provided and completes a form AOH by inserting information they believe to be correct and executes as the information being the same, then is this the unauthorized practice of law?
I have no idea where the other poster came up with unauthorized practice of law. It was a simple mistake leaving off legals/well in pay. An Affidavit of Heirship is simply someone stating they are familiar with the person(s) that passed away and these are the heirs they believe to be still alive or that passed away. I have no idea how thats unauthorized practice of law (not my words/phrase) unless the Affiant is lying.
I do not see where the poster said they prepared or executed the AOH, just that it contained the wrong legal description. If this is the case, does the current AOH meet notice requirements since TX is a Grantor/Grantee index system. Many wills filed of record for the same purpose do not contain a property inventory, so is the only issue clarity of the document?
Yes, it meets notice requirements, the only issue in this case is to provide the correct legal description for the purpose of getting into pay per Oxy’s requirements based on my understanding from the posts. If one were drafting a title opinion and ran across an AOH with no legals, the requirement would be to file a new AOH with the legals regarding the well, same for wills that dont list legals. Every operator is different, some will waive the requirment(s) as they feel comfortable with it, others will not and might even make the mineral owner jump through more hoops. A title attorney has to cover their behinds, the reason for so many comments and requirements on DOTO’s to let the operator chose how they want to proceed on said requirements which will be discussed between the title attorney, head landman for the area, in house operator attorney and higher ups if it the acreage is significant. One could own the exact same interest in 2 wells operated by 2 different companies with the exact same title chain and the requirements for Operator A and Operator B are the same. Leaving mineral owner to love Operator A, because the requirments were waived. Operator B, doesnt waive those same requirements and the mineral owner says, well Operator A did, you all should as well. It doesnt work like that, which is hard for most to understand.
Thanks @Bob77 for helping to define this issue. I hope this clarifies this issue for many on the forum. You covered some great points for people to consider that us title wonks take as second nature.
In this case the poster never said they prepared the AoH, but somehow @sclausen mistakenly interpreted the poster prepared the AoH and developed a new discussion tangent based on this assumption. The result is the poster received very confusing advice. Best advice for those reviewing documents, read carefully before developing a decision on the document. In many cases, a seasoned professional can provide an elegant and simple solution to a problem which creates much less stress.