Lessors not present for "notarized leases"

It has been brought to our families attention that the extensions on several leases surrounding our property and some of our families property have been notarized by the "leasees" without the "lessors" present. This is on the first five year lease and extended leases. It actually states the lessor was present but none of these families were. Some of these families are not cashing their checks, sent them back, Andarako sent back copies of the lease with the extension mentioned . They did not address the lack of the parties not being present when the lease "wasn't signed"..They are not signed but are notarized.

 

I discovered an article in the papers, and in Tioga Co. Gas Watch that this could make the lease null and void..Boy I see some doors opening of this old leases at a stinking 45 an acre bonus flying out the window..What do you all think?

 

Views: 427

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on September 2, 2011 at 6:24pm
Not understanding this.  If there were no signatures, what was notarized? 
Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on September 2, 2011 at 7:22pm
I was curious if notarization of the lessor's signature on an o/g lease is necessary for it to be "legal".   Unless PA law is different from most, the answer is no, notarization is not required.  However, notarization is generally required to be able to record the lease. 
Permalink Reply by Lynn Wigglesworth on September 2, 2011 at 11:07pm
If they have an automatic extension, I didn't think a signature was required. But notarizing something without the signatory being present isn't right (maybe they are re-notarizing the initial document to refile for the extension?). There was a big fuss a couple of years ago about East getting leases signed then having them notarized later, without the landowner present. That's probably what you read about in Gas Watch. I think it's worth pursuing because we really have to keep an eye on these Gas Cos. and keep them at least semi-honest! If they start losing leases or money over their questionable practices, maybe they will stop doing them.
Permalink Reply by Brian Day on September 3, 2011 at 2:43am
I think that legal battleship has sailed and sank over a year ago.  Put your money and hopes on challenging the definition of "held by production>  This fuzzy area is about all the battle grounds that you have now.  If the utica or Blackriver Trenton is to be explored, these layers are below the onendaga and come under the DEP's jurisdiction to set up spacing or unit size.  This developement might be a future battle.  also, these formations have a whole new geology and probably should not be held by Marcellus unitization arrangements.  After all, units are set up to make the most productive wells according to the geology, right?  Not to grab control of large areas of land at carpetbagger prices.

RSS

© 2026   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service