3. Surface Ownership: Accommodation Doctrine vs. Surface Damage Act : We will contrast how Texas’s Accommodation
established only through the right to search for and reduce minerals to possession. 3
Doctrine versus Oklahoma’s Surface Damages Act impacts the necessity of including surface ownership in title opinions.
As such, in Oklahoma, the concepts of “landowner” and “mineral owner” represent two distinctly separate viewpoints. If you ask an Oklahoman, “Are you a landowner or a mineral owner?”, you are likely to hear, “I own minerals” or “I’m a mineral owner.” However, pose the same question to a farmer or rancher, and you will probably get a response like, “I own the surface, but not the minerals.” This distinction is critical because in Oklahoma, it is exceedingly rare to purchase land where the mineral rights are included. The vast majority of mineral rights have long been severed from the surface rights, illustrating the unique separation of these ownership types in the state. Thus, when Oklahoma partitioners see terms like “landowner’s interest,” “landowner’s royalty rights,” or “landowner’s mineral interest” in an Oklahoma conveyance, it might raise questions. For instance, if O conveys to A an undivided 1/16 “landowner’s royalty interest,” the terminology can confuse: Is this a conveyance of mineral rights or royalty? Here, “landowner” might not adequately describe the interest, especially post-lease, where the term would be irrelevant in Oklahoma’s context since the mineral estate is not automatically tied to land or surface ownership. 4 For example, the term “Land” in Oklahoma’s property code (through amendments) has been defined (and interpreted) to specifically exclude oil and gas. 5 With respect to deed interpretation and drafting (and not title opinions) the late Professor Emeritus Richard W. Hemingway (Eugene O. Kuntz, Professor of Oil and Gas Law, University of Oklahoma ), observed:
4. Deed of Trust vs. Mortgage: We will explore the conceptual differences between a Deed of Trust, prevalent in “title theory” states like Texas, and a Mortgage, which is the norm in “lien theory” states like Oklahoma. We will examine how these security instruments operate and affect the securing of interests in oil and gas properties. 5. “Husband and Wife” (Community Property) vs. Co-Tenancy (Common Law) : Here, we analyze how marital property laws in Texas contrast with Oklahoma’s common law principles, which significantly affects the conveyance and ownership of interests. By understanding these distinctions, we aim to provide a clearer picture of why Oklahoma’s title practices necessitate a customized approach rather than a complete adoption of the Texas model.
“Landowner’s Royalty” (LOR) vs. Royalty
1.
In Texas-style title opinions, the term “Landowner’s Royalty” (LOR) is commonly seen in ownership tables, which might describe either the mineral owner’s lease royalty interest or the proportionately reduced royalty interest, typically represented by an eight-digit “Decimal” interest. However, this terminology could seem unusual or even a bit odd to an Oklahoma practitioner due to the fundamental differences in how mineral rights are viewed between these states. You see, Texas operates under an “ownership in place” doctrine, where landowners inherently own the minerals beneath their land unless specifically severed. In contrast, Oklahoma follows a “non- ownership in place” approach, where no one inherently owns the minerals in place; ownership is
The presence of words such as . . . “Landowner’s,” modifying
3 See , Richard W. Hemingway , The Law of Oil and Gas § 1.3 (3d ed.). 4 See, Hemingway at § 2.7(F)(2). 5 16 Okla. Stat § 6 and see Oklahoma Attorney General Opinion 2024 OK AG 2.
9
G rowth T hrough E ducat i on - J uly / A ugus t / S ept ember 2025
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting