Gas and oil company wanting the lease money back

Is there anyone on here that has found out that the lease money you have been paid, should not have been and they are requesting it to be paid back.   I guess they did not check out the  deeds correctly and paid people and now say they should not have.  This is 2 years after they paid.   Just wondering to see how others are handling the situation.   

Views: 4581

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on February 27, 2014 at 4:21am

Was there a "No Warranty of Title" clause in your lease?

Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on February 27, 2014 at 4:31am

Yeah, you nailed it, Philip.

If Lessor (in effect) promised in lease that Lessor had good title . . that Lessor owned the minerals . . and if then later it turned out Lessor was not actual owner . . well of course gasco is gonna throw a fit and want its money back.

In my lease it's on the gasco to ascertain ownership of minerals.  I promised nothing, even though I do own my minerals AFAIK.  But if my gasco later determines I don't, that's on them and I owe them nothing.

Permalink Reply by countrygirl on February 27, 2014 at 7:48am

 I understand what you are saying, but  on this property there is no gas wells or never was and not a royalty payment of any kind was ever on it.  It was bought and we never knew there was an existing lease on it.  When the papers were signed, it was giving permission to research title and upon finding it clear they would make the payment.  When you receive payment then automatically figure you are clear.

Permalink Reply by DONNA M SELLERS on February 27, 2014 at 4:35am

DONT KNOW BUT SOUNDS LIKE ANOTHER CROOK HAS FIGURED A WAY TO FILL HIS POCKETS. DONT THINK THIS CAN HAPPEN.

Permalink Reply by Soundcraft on February 27, 2014 at 6:00am

i heard this has happened with a few landowners Wishguard signed up in Guernsey county.  Those leases were sold to Gulfport which in turn did a complete title check and found issues.  Gulfport wanted their money back.  Wishguard had already paid those landowners.  i don't know what the outcome was.

Permalink Reply by countrygirl on February 27, 2014 at 7:50am

Most are still fighting it from what I gather......but the bottom line is they were supposed to research the title before a person was paid.   most people do not know if they have the mineral rights or if the property is under lease.   this was bought from a farm that had been leased.   and then sold again...so there was no knowledge of a former lease on it.   they should have found it with the title search and the homeowner not paid then...

Permalink Reply by Kathleen on February 28, 2014 at 3:19am
B Ayers,

I'm just curious. Who leased the farm and when?
Permalink Reply by countrygirl on February 28, 2014 at 10:21am

Gulfport, 2011

Permalink Reply by V Miller on February 27, 2014 at 4:03pm
Wishguard did not pay, Gulfport did and yes there are numerous instances of Gulfport asking for there money money back and filing lawsuits against individuals. It seems at this point that they are going after the larger lease checks that they cut. Hard telling if they'll go after the smaller amounts
Permalink Reply by Alan Bowers on February 27, 2014 at 6:26am

For those with an ALOV lease with CHK under Article III Payment to Lessor Section 1 (on page 4) on the second to the last line on the page it says "All bonus payments, rentals and royalty payments made to Lessor under this Lease are non-refundable."

That means that they can ask all they want but you don't have to give back a single dime of what you have been paid.

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on February 27, 2014 at 6:33am

Look for language in your lease that reads something like this:

 "Lessor makes no warranty of any kind, express or implied, as to title to its interest in said land or its oil and/or gas interests thereunder, and there shall be no liability on the part of Lessor to refund any amount received under the Terms of this Lease (including but not limited to bonuses, delay rentals and/or royalties) in the event of any title failure, nor shall Lessor be required to furnish any bond, abstract or indemnification to any person or entity regarding its title to said lands, such matters of title to be determined at the sole cost, expense and risk of Lessee and not of Lessor."

Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on March 11, 2014 at 10:10am

Bingo!!!

RSS

© 2025   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service