Occasionally, I will come across an Oklahoma title opinion with a mineral ownership table that looks something like this:
Conclusion
In conclusion, the significant legal and operational differences between Texas and Oklahoma’s approaches to land and mineral rights make it clear that a Texas-style title opinion requires substantial modification to be effectively utilized within Oklahoma’s oil and gas industry. From the different interpretations of terms like “landowner’s royalty” or simply “royalty” to the distinct treatment of working interest versus leasehold, from the implications of the Surface Damages Act to the practical handling of Deeds of Trust versus Mortgages, each aspect of property law in Oklahoma presents unique challenges not accounted for in the Texas model. Furthermore, the treatment of marital property under Oklahoma’s common law system versus Texas’s community property laws further underscores the need for a tailored approach. These differences not only affect how property interests are conveyed but also dictate how title opinions must be structured to align with local legal frameworks and operational needs. Therefore, for those working within Oklahoma’s oil and gas sector, adapting the Texas Form title opinion involves more than mere translation; it demands a fundamental rethinking 25 Community property states include: Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Washington. Patrick H. Martin & Bruce M. Kramer, Williams & Meyers , Manual of Oil & Gas Terms 170 (2006). Alternatively, in Texas this interest could also be shown as “Hal G. Love and Paula M. Love, husband and wife, as their community property.” 26 See e.g., Kyles v. Kyles , 832 S.W.2d 194, 196 (Tex. App.— Beaumont 1992, no writ) (“As a general rule, property conveyed to one spouse during a marriage is presumed to be community property.” Also, see , Texas Family Code § 3.001 “Community property consists of the property, other than separate property, acquired by either spouse during marriage.” 27 16 Okla. Stat. § 1- Persons Who May Convey - Married Persons “Any person at least eighteen (18) years of age . . . may own and transfer real property . . . [A]ny persons . . . who have been legally married . . . , may own and transfer real property acquired after marriage.” 28 This statement presumes that no homestead issues are involved, which would otherwise require spousal joinder. For example, since there can be no homestead right in severed minerals, spousal joinder is not required in a mineral conveyance. 16 Okla. Stat. App. Title Examination Standards § 7.1. See also , Okla. Const. art. 12, § 1.
and that is when I know the title examiner was probably trained in a community property state. 25
Take for example a Mineral Deed that reads from Owner , as grantor, to Paula M. Love and Hal G. Love, husband and wife, as grantees. In Texas, when property is conveyed to a “husband and wife” without additional specification, it falls under the jurisdiction of Texas’s community property laws. 26 Here, both spouses together hold the property as “joint management community property,” which inherently means that neither spouse can unilaterally convey, sell, or encumber the property; both must consent. This dual requirement for consent is why in Texas title opinions, the ownership is typically shown as one combined interest, such as “Hal G. Love and Paula M. Love, husband and wife.” This ownership representation illustrates that under community property law, the interest of each spouse is intertwined, requiring mutual agreement for any action involving the property. In contrast, in Oklahoma which operates under common law property principles, when property is conveyed to a “husband and wife” without further specification, the law presumes a co-tenancy where each spouse holds an equal undivided interest as tenants in common. 27 This means there are no inherent restrictions on alienation ( i . e ., transfer of title) by either spouse; each can freely convey or encumber their half of the interest without the consent of the other. 28 Consequently, in Oklahoma title opinions, this interest would be reflected as separate, with each spouse’s ownership explicitly stated, such as “Paula Love, 1/2 interest” and “Hal Love, 1/2 interest.” This approach reflects the absence of community property laws that would require mutual consent for property transfers, as illustrated below.
14
N at i onal A ssociation of D i v i s i on O rder A nalys t s
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting