Jump to content

Menu

A question about wills


Recommended Posts

Does anyone have any knowledge of how wills work?  This is specifically in AR.  What happens if a will is not filed and doesn't go through probate?

I have some family (not immediate) where the dad died 34 years ago and she never filed the will.  Now there is an issue with some mineral rights because the 5 kids of the dad (3 of the kids are hers) were listed as heirs.....I guess she has been collecting all of these years on it and now it is up for a lease renewal and it is a problem.  How did she get away with that all of these years?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a will:

In TN if both spouses are on a particular investment, it automatically goes to the surviving spouse, with no need to file a will. If the investment is only in one spouse's name, the investment goes 1/3 to spouse with the remaining 2/3 split up among children. When the spouse dies, the investment has to go through probate.

With a will, this can be broken up however the person wants.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people don't have wills, and there are laws to decide who gets what in that scenario.  You would still go through probate.  I'm not sure how much that's enforced, but I haven't heard of anyone not going through probate when somebody dies.  I think you have to do that in order to get access to the deceased's bank accounts and stuff like that ... assuming you didn't already have access before he died.

People can give stuff away while they are still alive, and that doesn't have to go through probate.  Maybe this person is acting like that happened?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, SKL said:

Many people don't have wills, and there are laws to decide who gets what in that scenario.  You would still go through probate.  I'm not sure how much that's enforced, but I haven't heard of anyone not going through probate when somebody dies.  I think you have to do that in order to get access to the deceased's bank accounts and stuff like that ... assuming you didn't already have access before he died.

People can give stuff away while they are still alive, and that doesn't have to go through probate.  Maybe this person is acting like that happened?

I am sure she had her name on everything before he died.  So practically speaking there would be no reason to go through probate.  I guess?   Before she produced the will the oil and gas company was prepared to give the kids a signing bonus of $4200 each.  Now they won't give the bonus but they still want the kids to sign away their interest so they can move forward with drilling without having to wait on the will to go through probate.  I guess the will says she gets everything and that includes the mineral rights.  But I don't understand how a will can override an existing deed that has them named as heirs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thatboyofmine said:

@Scarlett, forgive me for interrupting!   But....   when you make a will, do you need to file it with a lawyer?   How will anyone know which lawyer you used?     

Arkansas does not require it to be notarized even. Much less filed with an attorney.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thatboyofmine said:

So you just put it in your filing cabinet or something?   

Apparently that is what she did.  She had it to pull out 34 years later when she needed it.  And now she has to get it filed and probate will happen.  Just seems like a mess to me.  This is the first time the kids have seen a will.  I always wondered why a will wasn't produced, but it wasn't my deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My grandmother thought that was all you had to do.   Apparently, she thought my grandfather's will worked for her too.   

While our trust (and my mom's - includes a will) was done professionally, it doesn't have to be kept with a lawyer.  Only estates above a certain amount have to have go through probate.

If the kids are objecting - they can hire a lawyer - otherwise it's her problem dealing with the IRS.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

My grandmother thought that was all you had to do.   Apparently, she thought my grandfather's will worked for her too.   

While our trust (and my mom's - includes a will) was done professionally, it doesn't have to be kept with a lawyer.  Only estates above a certain amount have to have go through probate.

If the kids are objecting - they can hire a lawyer - otherwise it's her problem dealing with the IRS.

IRS?  What do you mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

IRS?  What do you mean?

you go through probate for estate taxes - which are paid to the IRS.  An estate does have to be a certain size - and the mineral rights would affect that.  She'd need to know if they automatically transferred to her when he died - but if he had a will that said they were to be transferred to his children - then she would be liable for NOT turning the mineral rights over to them because she withheld the will.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

you go through probate for estate taxes - which are paid to the IRS.  An estate does have to be a certain size - and the mineral rights would affect that.  She'd need to know if they automatically transferred to her when he died - but if he had a will that said they were to be transferred to his children - then she would be liable for NOT turning the mineral rights over to them because she withheld the will.

I don't think it is anywhere near large enough to pay estate taxes.  

The will said she gets everything.  It has only recently been revealed that the mineral rights existed and had the children's name (as well as hers) attached.  My question is can a will that says 'you get everything' override an existing deed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I don't think it is anywhere near large enough to pay estate taxes.  

The will said she gets everything.  It has only recently been revealed that the mineral rights existed and had the children's name (as well as hers) attached.  My question is can a will that says 'you get everything' override an existing deed?

yea, for that they REALLY need their own lawyer to sort through all of that stuff. AND they should use a lawyer to deal with whatever company is trying to gain their mineral rights, in the first place. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I don't think it is anywhere near large enough to pay estate taxes.  

The will said she gets everything.  It has only recently been revealed that the mineral rights existed and had the children's name (as well as hers) attached.  My question is can a will that says 'you get everything' override an existing deed?

If the rights  were in the childrens' names, were they his to will to anyone?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I don't think it is anywhere near large enough to pay estate taxes.  

The will said she gets everything.  It has only recently been revealed that the mineral rights existed and had the children's name (as well as hers) attached.  My question is can a will that says 'you get everything' override an existing deed?

If the children's names are on the DEED to the mineral rights, then the will can only transfer the father's portion of ownership to his wife, he has no legal right to transfer the portions owned by the children to someone else. The children should definitely get a lawyer.

ETA: It would be the same as if a house was owned by several people who were all named on the title — one person cannot just arbitrarily give the entire property to someone else.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

If the children's names are on the DEED to the mineral rights, then the will can only transfer the father's portion of ownership to his wife, he has no legal right to transfer the portions owned by the children to someone else. The children should definitely get a lawyer.

That is what I am thinking.....

2 of the 3 have already signed off on it.  I guess giving up their interest? Their mother is very old and I think they just figure it will come to them eventually.   The third says he is not signing anything and he is very ticked about the lack of transparency for the last 34 years, but he knows it is typically of their mother.  He won't get an attorney.  But he has asked for a copy of the original deed that has his  name listed on it.  The landman is suddenly not cooperating since he has seen the will.  Personally if they have paid out funds to only her all of these years when the kids names were on the deed too I think that is worthy of further investigation.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

If the rights  were in the childrens' names, were they his to will to anyone?

That is my question.  But so far no one has seen the actual deed.  It only came up because the landman contacted the kids asking them to sign off before the new lease was signed by their mother.  I think they just realized the kids  names were on there when they went to renew the lease.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

That is what I am thinking.....

2 of the 3 have already signed off on it.  I guess giving up their interest? Their mother is very old and I think they just figure it will come to them eventually.   The third says he is not signing anything and he is very ticked about the lack of transparency for the last 34 years, but he knows it is typically of their mother.  He won't get an attorney.  But he has asked for a copy of the original deed that has his  name listed on it.  The landman is suddenly not cooperating since he has seen the will.  Personally if they have paid out funds to only her all of these years when the kids names were on the deed too I think that is worthy of further investigation.    

But 2 of the 5 kids who are on the deed are from a previous marriage, aren't they? What is their take on it, since presumably they won't be getting anything when their stepmother dies? Also, if the annual income is substantial, the second wife has basically been stealing that money from the other 5 owners for 34 years. Her own kids may not want to sue her to get it back, but the two from the first marriage may.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I don't think it is anywhere near large enough to pay estate taxes.  

The will said she gets everything.  It has only recently been revealed that the mineral rights existed and had the children's name (as well as hers) attached.  My question is can a will that says 'you get everything' override an existing deed?

Transfers made while the person was alive supersede the will, generally.  That would include giving rights of survivorship in a real estate document for example.  Assets that will pass based on those kinds of documents are excluded from the will and its probate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

But 2 of the 5 kids who are on the deed are from a previous marriage, aren't they? What is their take on it, since presumably they won't be getting anything when their stepmother dies? Also, if the annual income is substantial, the second wife has basically been stealing that money from the other 5 owners for 34 years. Her own kids may not want to sue her to get it back, but the two from the first marriage may.

I can only hope the land man contacted them like he did these 3.  One of those other marriage sons is deceased but his son is alive and would go to him.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

That is my question.  But so far no one has seen the actual deed.  It only came up because the landman contacted the kids asking them to sign off before the new lease was signed by their mother.  I think they just realized the kids  names were on there when they went to renew the lease.

I wonder if they passed at death as if the dad died without a will.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SKL said:

As far as estate taxes - there may be state tax even if federal tax doesn't kick in due to the size of the estate.

Well, that will probably be a mess that ends up being handled by her son that is taking care of things.  What a mess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and to complicate it, the will was written in AR  but the land is in LA.  From what I hear one of the kids is filing the will in LA.  She also lives there now.  I don't get it.  

 

 

Edited by Scarlett
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Well, that will probably be a mess that ends up being handled by her son that is taking care of things.  What a mess.

Yeah and it's probably overdue ....

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

The landman seems to think the will solves his problems.  So I don't know.  

If the will "solved the problem" then he wouldn't need the children to sign away their ownership rights. The father's will has no bearing on the rights of other owners who are named on the deed, and the fact that the landman is currently trying to get the kids to sign their ownership rights back to the mother seems like a pretty clear indication that they are named on the deed. The child who wants to see a copy of the deed before he gives his portion of the property to his mother for free, has every legal right to see it. If the landman won't give him a copy, he can request a copy from the county records office in the county where the land is located. 

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

If the will "solved the problem" then he wouldn't need to children to sign away their ownership rights. The father's will has no bearing on the rights of other owners who are named on the deed, and the fact that the landman is currently trying to get the kids to sign their ownership rights back to the mother seems like a pretty clear indication that they are named on the deed. The child who wants to see a copy of the deed before he gives his portion of the property to his mother for free, has every legal right to see it. If the landman won't give him a copy, he can request a copy from the county records office in the county where the land is located. 

Hopefully that is what he will do.  He called me asking me all kinds of questions because I know more about the family than he does.  It is a very strange family.  They were completely cut off from their older 2 brothers.  She told me that the 2nd oldest was not really her husband's child.  I  never gave that much thought until I started doing genealogy and discovered he was married to the second wife for 10 years and this child was born right in the middle of the marriage.  She just liked to pretend the other boys didn't exist.  She is a horrible greedy and mean person.  This son that is refusing to sign off has not talked to her in 10 years at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

If the will "solved the problem" then he wouldn't need to children to sign away their ownership rights. The father's will has no bearing on the rights of other owners who are named on the deed, and the fact that the landman is currently trying to get the kids to sign their ownership rights back to the mother seems like a pretty clear indication that they are named on the deed. The child who wants to see a copy of the deed before he gives his portion of the property to his mother for free, has every legal right to see it. If the landman won't give him a copy, he can request a copy from the county records office in the county where the land is located. 

Oh and I think the reason the land man wants them to sign off even though the will solves his problem is  because wills take so long to go through probate.  So this way they don't have to depend on the will.  But I don't trust any of it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

I don't think it is anywhere near large enough to pay estate taxes.  

The will said she gets everything.  It has only recently been revealed that the mineral rights existed and had the children's name (as well as hers) attached.  My question is can a will that says 'you get everything' override an existing deed?

If the document that states there are mineral rights is legal (there should be a record of it when it was filed with whatever gov't agency had oversight), if it states the children own the mineral rights  - then the children have been the legal owners the entire time.  A will cannot change that because they are separate documents.   If she's been receiving  income from it the whole time - that is money that should have gone to the *legal* owners, the ones whose names were on the deed.

They will need to get a good real estate lawyer to sort through this.   

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

I am sure she had her name on everything before he died.  So practically speaking there would be no reason to go through probate.  I guess?   Before she produced the will the oil and gas company was prepared to give the kids a signing bonus of $4200 each.  Now they won't give the bonus but they still want the kids to sign away their interest so they can move forward with drilling without having to wait on the will to go through probate.  I guess the will says she gets everything and that includes the mineral rights.  But I don't understand how a will can override an existing deed that has them named as heirs.  

If the children's names are on the deed - it is separate from the will.  If the company wants *them* to sign, it would indicate their names ARE on the deed for the rights and the will is irrelevant.  The mom/step-mom whatever she is - cannot sign away their rights.  the will saying she "gets everything" cannot sign away a specific legal document granting rights to others who are named in that other specific document.

 

They need a good attorney ASAP.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Oh and I think the reason the land man wants them to sign off even though the will solves his problem is  because wills take so long to go through probate.  So this way they don't have to depend on the will.  But I don't trust any of it.  

They want them to sign off because - yeah, their names are on it.  He doesn't want them to wait has zero to do with the will (which doesn't apply to a deed with the names of people other than the decedent) , and everything to do with "the children" finding out just how much those mineral rights are worth and he doesn't want to pay them that much.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

They want them to sign off because - yeah, their names are on it.  He doesn't want them to wait has zero to do with the will (which doesn't apply to a deed with the names of people other than the decedent) , and everything to do with "the children" finding out just how much those mineral rights are worth and he doesn't want to pay them that much.

yes, this. $4800 or whatever he offered them is crazy-low, and the kids NEED an attorney, and likely the company &/or the mom/stepmom owes them a ton of money in back-payments. (were they minors during part of this? is that maybe why the money was going to the mom instead of the kids....???)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

Oh and I think the reason the land man wants them to sign off even though the will solves his problem is  because wills take so long to go through probate.  So this way they don't have to depend on the will.  But I don't trust any of it.  

Probate would only affect the transfer of the husband's portion of ownership to his wife. Probate has zero relevance to the ownership rights of the people named on the deed who are not dead. It sounds like the landman is trying to con the children into thinking that the will gave all rights to the mother, which is false, in order to prevent them from looking too closely at what's been going on.

As gardenmom suggested, this guy may have been cheating the mother out of the true value of those rights for the last 34 years, and has a vested interest in tricking the children into signing away their rights so he can continue to exploit an old lady who doesn't know what they're really worth.

Also, the kids who signed away their rights on the assumption that they'll inherit the property eventually anyway are not understanding that once their mother owns 100%, she can be conned into selling the property for vastly less than it's worth, and they would get nothing.

ETA: The $4200 "signing bonus" this guy offered sounds suspiciously like he was trying to trick them into selling him their shares without them realizing what he was doing. 

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

How much money are you talking about in royalties from minerals?  Attorney fees may outweigh whatever  royalty payments would have been.  If not, then yes indeed the adult children need an attorney.  The plaintiffs will have case against "landman" or against mother/stepmother for taking what was rightfully theirs for 34 years although you stated that at least some of the children "signed off" on those conditions.

Re: estate taxes.  If decedent died 34 years ago, the federal lifetime exemption was $500,000 at his death.  Thus, if the fair market value of his assets at death exceeded $500,000, then, yes, the decedent's estate would owe estate taxes with outrageous penalties and interest to the IRS.  That is landmine I would not want to set off.  Do not know if LA and AR had estate taxes at decedent's death.  Only a handful of states still have an estate tax provision, but more states had estate tax in the 1980s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, annandatje said:

How much money are you talking about in royalties from minerals?  Attorney fees may outweigh whatever  royalty payments would have been.  If not, then yes indeed the adult children need an attorney.  The plaintiffs will have case against "landman" or against mother/stepmother for taking what was rightfully theirs for 34 years although you stated that at least some of the children "signed off" on those conditions.

Re: estate taxes.  If decedent died 34 years ago, the federal lifetime exemption was $500,000 at his death.  Thus, if the fair market value of his assets at death exceeded $500,000, then, yes, the decedent's estate would owe estate taxes with outrageous penalties and interest to the IRS.  That is landmine I would not want to set off.  Do not know if LA and AR had estate taxes at decedent's death.  Only a handful of states still have an estate tax provision, but more states had estate tax in the 1980s.

But if he left everything (that he legally owned) to his wife, the spousal exemption would apply, so no taxes would be due until she dies, and the current exemption is 11.7 million. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, annandatje said:

How much money are you talking about in royalties from minerals?  Attorney fees may outweigh whatever  royalty payments would have been.  If not, then yes indeed the adult children need an attorney.  The plaintiffs will have case against "landman" or against mother/stepmother for taking what was rightfully theirs for 34 years although you stated that at least some of the children "signed off" on those conditions.

Re: estate taxes.  If decedent died 34 years ago, the federal lifetime exemption was $500,000 at his death.  Thus, if the fair market value of his assets at death exceeded $500,000, then, yes, the decedent's estate would owe estate taxes with outrageous penalties and interest to the IRS.  That is landmine I would not want to set off.  Do not know if LA and AR had estate taxes at decedent's death.  Only a handful of states still have an estate tax provision, but more states had estate tax in the 1980s.

I believe it was less than 500K at the time of his death.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, annandatje said:

How much money are you talking about in royalties from minerals?  Attorney fees may outweigh whatever  royalty payments would have been.  If not, then yes indeed the adult children need an attorney.  The plaintiffs will have case against "landman" or against mother/stepmother for taking what was rightfully theirs for 34 years although you stated that at least some of the children "signed off" on those conditions.

Re: estate taxes.  If decedent died 34 years ago, the federal lifetime exemption was $500,000 at his death.  Thus, if the fair market value of his assets at death exceeded $500,000, then, yes, the decedent's estate would owe estate taxes with outrageous penalties and interest to the IRS.  That is landmine I would not want to set off.  Do not know if LA and AR had estate taxes at decedent's death.  Only a handful of states still have an estate tax provision, but more states had estate tax in the 1980s.

 a company wants it to develop it. - they would spend far more than lawyers would get to straighten this out to do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TheReader said:

yes, this. $4800 or whatever he offered them is crazy-low, and the kids NEED an attorney, and likely the company &/or the mom/stepmom owes them a ton of money in back-payments. (were they minors during part of this? is that maybe why the money was going to the mom instead of the kids....???)

But I think that was for each of them.  So times 6.  Her and the 5 kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scarlett said:

But I think that was for each of them.  So times 6.  Her and the 5 kids.

It's a drop in the bucket compared to what they expect to get out of the land.  They're being ripped off.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

But if he left everything (that he legally owned) to his wife, the spousal exemption would apply, so no taxes would be due until she dies, and the current exemption is 11.7 million. 

If deed named children as owner after father's death, there would be no spousal exemption for what passes to children.  However, Scarlett has stated that total estate was under $500K so there would be no estate tax even if nothing passed to spouse.  The current exemption of $11.7 million is for 2021 deaths only so would not apply to the father's estate.  Exemption is adjusted annually for inflation, and is set to drop back to $5M adjusted for inflation after 2025 unless Congress extends the generous exemption.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, annandatje said:

How much money are you talking about in royalties from minerals?  Attorney fees may outweigh whatever  royalty payments would have been.  If not, then yes indeed the adult children need an attorney.  The plaintiffs will have case against "landman" or against mother/stepmother for taking what was rightfully theirs for 34 years although you stated that at least some of the children "signed off" on those conditions.

Re: estate taxes.  If decedent died 34 years ago, the federal lifetime exemption was $500,000 at his death.  Thus, if the fair market value of his assets at death exceeded $500,000, then, yes, the decedent's estate would owe estate taxes with outrageous penalties and interest to the IRS.  That is landmine I would not want to set off.  Do not know if LA and AR had estate taxes at decedent's death.  Only a handful of states still have an estate tax provision, but more states had estate tax in the 1980s.

 

11 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

It's a drop in the bucket compared to what they expect to get out of the land.  They're being ripped off.

Are they leasing the property for exploration or are oil/natural gas already being extracted from the property? IME, production companies lease, explore, and evaluate the property’s potential. This land man may have inside knowledge that the land - which has been under lease for years - is going to be actively developed. (That may be in connection with a keystone shutdown, the thought that fuel prices may increase with the new administration’s economic policy, any number of reasons related to supply and demand, plus the factor of how difficult the terrain is to develop, is there existing infrastructure or do they have to build roads, that kind of thing.) 

Royalties from productive mineral leases can earn millions. Time for those kids to lawyer up. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, annandatje said:

The current exemption of $11.7 million is for 2021 deaths only so would not apply to the father's estate.  

Yes, I meant that anything inherited by the wife 34 years ago would have been exempted from inheritance taxes, with nothing due until she dies, and the exemption is much much higher now.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it strange they were paying her all these years if it was supposed to be the kids. When my dad died, we started receiving his mineral rights and did nothing to provoke that change (my parents were divorced so no spouse). Then, a few years later we started receiving mineral rights from another company and it was because some distant great aunt had passed and we were next in line to receive them. We didn’t even know that one existed but they found us.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

It's a drop in the bucket compared to what they expect to get out of the land.  They're being ripped off.

Well I don’t know how you could know that.....and besides that is just the signing bonus. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joker2 said:

I find it strange they were paying her all these years if it was supposed to be the kids. When my dad died, we started receiving his mineral rights and did nothing to provoke that change (my parents were divorced so no spouse). Then, a few years later we started receiving mineral rights from another company and it was because some distant great aunt had passed and we were next in line to receive them. We didn’t even know that one existed but they found us.

Well, they found these kids too.  It just took 34 years.  Lol

Is it possible they never knew he died?  Maybe she was just taking the checks somehow?  I don’t know.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Well I don’t know how you could know that.....and besides that is just the signing bonus. 

Is it a lease signing bonus or are they selling their mineral rights?

I inherited some and there is a lot of legal stuff involved.  Even with the lease, there are royalty rates, deductions, etc and on and on.....and those differences in how the lease is written can make the difference of a $6 check or a $6000 check for the same amount of land/minerals.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

Is it a lease signing bonus or are they selling their mineral rights?

I inherited some and there is a lot of legal stuff involved.  Even with the lease, there are royalty rates, deductions, etc and on and on.....and those differences in how the lease is written can make the difference of a $6 check or a $6000 check for the same amount of land/minerals.

I have never heard of a lease “signing” bonus. Red flag. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

Is it a lease signing bonus or are they selling their mineral rights?

I inherited some and there is a lot of legal stuff involved.  Even with the lease, there are royalty rates, deductions, etc and on and on.....and those differences in how the lease is written can make the difference of a $6 check or a $6000 check for the same amount of land/minerals.

My understanding is the lease came up for renewal and that is when they realized the 5 kids were also on the deed. I don’t think she is selling her rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...