What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas
An oil company attempting to lease my mineral interest in a tract is questioning the language used in the deed which conveyed that interest to
my father. The language uses the common wording: "...an XXX interest in and to all the oil, gas and other minerals on, in and under and that may
be produced from" a certain tract. They suggest that this decades-old wording is ambiguous and subject to differing interpretations.
They say that it is unclear whether the grantor is conveying a portion of
all the minerals in the tract or is conveying a portion of the minerals that
he owns in the tract.
The deed, in fact, does not state how much of the tract's minerals the grantor owns. But, a search of the previous grantor's deed reveals that
this grantor is conveying less that he owns.
Of course, my contention is that the language clearly conveys an interest
in all the minerals in the tract.... and that it is irrelevant how much of the minerals the grantor owns (so long as he's conveying less than he owns).
Comments? Is this time-honored wording really ambiguous?
An oil company attempting to lease my mineral interest in a tract is questioning the language used in the deed which conveyed that interest to
my father. The language uses the common wording: "...an XXX interest in and to all the oil, gas and other minerals on, in and under and that may
be produced from" a certain tract. They suggest that this decades-old wording is ambiguous and subject to differing interpretations.
They say that it is unclear whether the grantor is conveying a portion of
all the minerals in the tract or is conveying a portion of the minerals that
he owns in the tract.
The deed, in fact, does not state how much of the tract's minerals the grantor owns. But, a search of the previous grantor's deed reveals that
this grantor is conveying less that he owns.
Of course, my contention is that the language clearly conveys an interest
in all the minerals in the tract.... and that it is irrelevant how much of the minerals the grantor owns (so long as he's conveying less than he owns).
Comments? Is this time-honored wording really ambiguous?