- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/27/15 at 8:28 am to Clyde Tipton
What state?
I don't think it's 4-0 anymore. Without seeing the specific language, I'm going with person B also.
I don't think it's 4-0 anymore. Without seeing the specific language, I'm going with person B also.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 8:44 am to TSLG
quote:
What state? I don't think it's 4-0 anymore. Without seeing the specific language, I'm going with person B also.
It is definitely B. The argument that an instrument that specifically includes minerals and is silent on royalty somehow constitutes a reservation of royalty rights is completely absurd. B needs to get a lawyer right now.
It's like selling a lot with a house and a pool then saying the new owner can't swim there because the deed didn't specifically include the pool water.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 8:46 am to TSLG
If Person A's attorney practices mineral rights law in Louisiana they probably should think about quitting. Also, person B (assuming LA) is due the royalty payments back to the time of sale and can claim said payments for a period of up to three years.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 9:38 am to Creamer
quote:
The lease of the minerals is secondary, or accessory, to the ownership of them. Therefore, A cannot maintain a lease of minerals for which he has no ownership.
First of all, I know nothing about mineral rights...
But this makes sense to me. Same if I buy a rental property, the rent checks dont keep going to the previous owner. His right to lease out the mineral rights should end when he sold those rights.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 10:32 am to Clyde Tipton
Clyde: you might have abandoned the thread, but all you have to do to get a definitive answer is scan the deed and redact the party info. Looks like there are plenty of people here that could tell you what is conveyed by looking at the language. Like some other guy said, this isn't legal advice and so forth.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 12:48 pm to Ham Malone
quote:
Clyde: you might have abandoned the thread
I'm still here.
quote:
all you have to do to get a definitive answer is scan the deed and redact the party info
I don't even know the party names. This scenario/case came up in small talk over drinks a few nights ago. I was just relaying the story the best I was told to gauge other opinions.
I thought person A had a decent technicality argument.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 1:16 pm to Clyde Tipton
Nope. He didn't retain the rights; he can't retain the payments that accrue to those rights.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 1:23 pm to Chris4x4gill2
quote:
If Person A's attorney practices mineral rights law in Louisiana they probably should think about quitting. Also, person B (assuming LA) is due the royalty payments back to the time of sale and can claim said payments for a period of up to three years.
I cannot see any Louisiana attorney, who could find a civil code or mineral code, screwing the pooch this badly.
I would guess that our Seller had an Internet forum attorney. Lol.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 3:23 pm to Creamer
quote:
The lease of the minerals is secondary, or accessory, to the ownership of them. Therefore, A cannot maintain a lease of minerals for which he has no ownership.
Somewhere, Pat Ottinger has a raging cock boner because of that answer.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News