2012 . Seventy percent (70%) of Yates Energy’s interest was subsequently assigned to EOG Resources et al. by Yates Energy. 6. The Bank and all beneficiaries under the trust, including John, thereafter executed a duly recorded instrument dated November 4, 2013 whereby all grantees, and specifically John, acknowledged that John only acquired a life estate under the deed described in 3. above (“2013 Correction Deed”). This correction deed , issued some eight (8) years after the 2005 Deed, was found by the Court to be a valid correction deed.
agreement/amendment, Mary Frances Evers created the Mary Frances Evers (Intervivos) Trust, naming Broadway National Bank as Trustee. Apparently, the actual trust agreement was not recorded. Was there a deed of conveyance into the trust? Unknown. If there was a deed of conveyance into the trust, was that conveyance recorded? Unknown. Mary Frances Evers apparently amended the unrecorded trust agreement to provide that John was only to receive a life estate in 25% of the mineral estate in, on and under the lands at issue and other lands. 2. Mary Frances Evers died in 2003 (not stated in the Court’s opinion but independently verified), thus apparently making the terms of her trust irrevocable. 3. The Bank, as trustee, thereafter via distribution deed conveyed to John (and others) who, per the Mary Francis Evers trust, was only to receive a life estate in the oil, gas and other minerals in the lands at issue, an undivided 25% fee simple interest therein by deed dated February 1, 2005 (which deed was properly recorded). This distribution was apparently not in accordance with the express terms of the 2003 trust agreement/amendment. 4. The Bank thereafter attempted to “correct” its perceived mistake by issuing the first correction deed dated June 26, 2006 (which deed was properly recorded) to the same persons listed in the deed in 3. but only conveying to John a life estate in the oil, gas and other minerals in the subject lands. This correction deed was only signed by the Bank. 5. John thereafter conveyed a royalty interest to Yates Energy by duly recorded deed effective February 1, 2012 as well as an overriding royalty interest by separate assignment also effective February 1,
7. John died a few months thereafter.
Yates Energy thereafter disputed whether its grantor, John, owned a life estate or fee simple estate in and to an undivided 25% of the minerals in, on and under the subject lands. Thus, the case was joined with the Bank seeking declaratory relief in the probate court that the correction deed signed ONLY by it and the original parties to the 2005 deed of distribution was a valid correction deed. The remaindermen under John’s life estate interest joined the litigation seeking to have their interest validated and confirm that John only received a life estate in the minerals in and to the subject lands as well as confirming that the 2013 Correction Deed was valid. Question: What title attorney/real estate attorney would fail to join Yates Energy/EOG Resources et al. in the 2013 Correction Deed? It may be that either the Bank had contacted them about signing the 2013 Correction Deed and they refused or the Bank was convinced they would never sign (who would deliberately decrease their royalty interest for no consideration?). And after the decision in this case? Persons/entities owning no interest in the lands at issue can, years later, potentially denude properly vested parties of their interest simply by signing a correction deed.
Question: Did John receive any remuneration for his execution of the 2013 Correction Deed? Unknown.
14
N at i onal A ssociation of D i v i s i on O rder A nalys t s
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator