The person who is selling the land, along with his heirs and successors, maintains the rights to any oil, gas, or minerals found on it - forever. He didn't mention anything about this during our discussions of the purchase but now it's in the contract. This is an oil rich area, so I understand that this is standard language on a contract. However, I don't think it's mandatory. I have requested that he remove this clause. Is this reasonable?
2007-05-02 07:06:46 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Lots of deeds in certain areas retain mineral rights. You are within your rights to refuse to buy without the entire fee simple package of rights; and he's within his rights to sell it that way.
Will come down to how badly he wants to sell vs. how much the chances of a mineral strike weigh in.
2007-05-02 07:10:37 · answer #1 · answered by wizjp 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Believe it or not, this is very common. You'd be hard pressed in Texas to find land that came with the mineral rights. If there isn't a pumping well on the site now and its in an area where there are a lot of active wells, I'd guess the geological survey for that property wasn't very favorable for a successful drill, which would mean that there's probably little chance that this would ever effect you anyhow. I would however make sure that you have the water rights so that you can put in a well should you develop the property, unless it is serviced by a municipal water system.
2007-05-02 07:43:23 · answer #2 · answered by Jim 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure. Otherwise you may wake up some day with a oil rig standing on your driveway- if he retains the mineral rights then he also retains the "right of access".
IMO if you buy this land with his conditions included, then you should demand that the price be set at (at least) half the market price. And even then expect surprises, since you will have to ask his permission every time you want to dig a hole on "your" land.
Sounds like the guy wants both to eat the cake and keep it.
2007-05-02 07:18:26 · answer #3 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, until there is a meeting of the minds of both the seller and the buyer everything is negotiable. If I only wanted the land because of its views to build a home, then I wouldn't mind at all. Note that although the mineral rights are there, the ground over it belongs to you. They cannot access the minerals without your permission or without compensating you.
2007-05-02 07:18:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh, absolutely! He wants his "cake and to eat it too"...if this can be a negotiating tool...use it! Why would he want to hang onto land, if he can sell AND have mineral rights???? I don't think so....
Tell 'em you'll not sign unless that is removed from the contract...
IMHO, of course...
2007-05-02 07:11:44 · answer #5 · answered by Toots 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would not want to buy a land from anyone who would want to claim the goods of it at their will. Either I buy it and it's MY land, or I don't buy it and if they want to keep whatever comes out of the land, then why not just keep the land, then. How unfair is that for the buyer.
2007-05-02 07:16:23 · answer #6 · answered by Faith . 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course. They can't build rigging on your property. So what are you going to do build rigging and have an outside company to come in and have them deliver all the profits to that guy who sold you the land. Your being way more than reasonable.
2007-05-02 07:10:29 · answer #7 · answered by Kevin 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
every time you're slicing out the "center guy," the only that builds your living house, you will shop alot of funds. you narrow back out their overhead/income and you have instantaneous reductions. So in case you purchase the land and construct the living house, you will come out forward.
2016-12-28 07:47:21 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In many Western states, reservations of mineral rghts are common. If it is not acceptable to you, don't sign it.
2007-05-02 07:11:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would make him lower the price, as this could seriously lower the value of the property.
2007-05-02 07:10:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋