Some indiscriminate or inaccurate description of events is taking place in either the Complaint [not Summons which was the first document that referenced the obligation to answer in 20 days] or in your notes. I suspect that the Landowner [the Widower owing surface and mineral interest] entered into a 1963 Contract for Deed with your Relative [now deceased] for some amount payable over a period of time. If your Relative pays everything in a timely fashion, the Contract for Deed generally provides for delivery of the deed [usually a Warranty Deed] on a designated date. Landowner is the record title owner subject to the Contract for Deed; Landowner can convey his interest to any third party by way of a 1967 deed [Warranty Deed or Quit Claim Deed] and the third party then becomes the record title owner BUT STILL SUBJECT TO A CONTRACT FOR DEED IN FAVOR OF YOUR RELATIVE. While the third party is the record title owner, he is entitled to any payments made by your Relative, and when the contract is fully paid the third party is obligated to convey the land to your Relative [just like the original Landowner would have been obligated so to do if he had retained the land]. However, your quoted language suggests that the Landowner is conveying the real property to the third party because of an "assignment" meaning your Relative has probably sold his interest in the Contract for Deed to the third party. It is possible that no attorney was involved in the process [a lawyer would have insisted upon a written, executed, notarized document that would then be recorded at the Recorder's Office] because the Contract for Deed was paid off in only 4 years [1967]and everyone aatisfied with one deed [Landowner to third party] and one recording fee -- rather than two deeds [Landowner to Relative; Relative to third party] and two recording fees. Someone decided to take a shortcut. However something else is involved that requires looking at the actual documents because you reference the existence of two (2) 1963 Contracts for Deed and the Plaintiff is asserting that you may have a claim only for "minerals in and under the land" -- is it possible that the two (2) Contracts for Deed had different interests in land involved? Contract for Deed #1 for surface and minerals; Contract for Deed #2 for surface only -- and the "Assignment" of the Contract for Deed only related to the Contract for Deed involving the surface interest only? Further, both Contracts for Deed were duly recorded in 1963 so the third party had to have knowledge of the documents. Why were there two (2) Contracts for Deed? There are lots of questions: time [statutes of limitation]; possession; payment of taxes; past leasing of mineral interests; how the matter was handled in the estate of the Relative; etc.
An attorney will help you identify the fastest and cheapest way of compiling the information so that he or she can assert whatever legal claim you may assert. Another question exists -- why a Quiet Title Action instead of using a more abbreviated route by way of an affidavit that is possible under some circumstances. North Dakota Century Code Chapter 47-19.1 entitled "Marketable Record Title" which allows for a person having an unbroken chain of title to an interest in real estate of twenty years or more to file an affidavit that has the effect of "bar(ring) all claims that affect or may affect the interest thus dealt with ..." It may be that the Plaintiffs want the security of a judicial determination. Contacting an attorney on Monday is sufficient because he cannot get into the Recorder's Office now anyway. Get all of your papers together so they can be faxed or overnighted to your chosen attorney from that area. If you do not know any attorneys, call old friends of your family from that community -- but do not call the lawyers identified on the Summons and Complaint. However, if you are approaching the end of the 20 days, call the attorneys on Monday and enter an appearance by telling them your name and address and telephone number. Tell them that you are contacting an attorney and that you are entering an appearance. If you hire an attorney he will confirm the appearance; if you do not get an attorney on Monday, write a letter [keep a copy] to the attorney for PLaintiff and give written notice that you are entering an appearance with an Answer to follow shortly. That way no default judgment can be entered without further notice to you that something is happening involving the Judge. Your attorney will take care of it. Without reading the documents, no one can provide an accurate answer to your question on success. If you choose to not investigate so that you do not answer [if legally and/or factually possible], I guarantee you will lose! On Oct 3, 9:53 pm, twinsfan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An uncle and I was listed as the only heir to estate. > > On Oct 3, 9:37 pm, go-devil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > How is the relative related? > > It sounds involved but a lawyer is your first step. > > > On Oct 3, 7:00 pm, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I hope you are already in your car and running down I-94 stopping only > > > for gas! I hope you have not waited to tackle this till the last > > > minute ... IF you cannot get there yourself to consult in person with > > > an attorney, hire one IMMEDIATELY tomorrow morning. Once you have one > > > that is going to take the case, immediately fax or scan a copy of the > > > summons to the attorney and let them handle everything. DONT SIGN > > > ANYTHING. DON"T TALK TO ANYONE ABOUT THE CASE EXCEPT your attorney. DO > > > NOT CONTACT ANYONE ELSE involved in the case. > > > Get thee to ND now! RUN! Fast! > > > GOOD LUCK, > > > Rufus > > > > On Oct 3, 8:39 pm, twinsfan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for taking the time to respond Jon, very helpful, and I will be > > > > contacting an attorney! Since you are so knowledgeable here are some > > > > more details that I've just found out. My relative purchased the 1/4 > > > > section in 1963 with a Contract for Deed from a now deceased widower > > > > who owned all surface and minerals. In 1967 the widower issued a > > > > Warranty Deed to another party (now the plantiffs) stating, "this deed > > > > is given pursuant to an assignment by (my relative) of all there right > > > > under and by virtue of a certain Contact for Deed between (widower) > > > > and (my relative) to plantiff; and in fullfillment of two separate > > > > Contract for Deeds dated 1963 and recorded in Books 111,etc. NO SUCH > > > > ASSIGNMENT APPEARS OF RECORD. The summons goes on the tell of the the > > > > different transfers of ownerships done by the Mineral Trust of the > > > > plantiff and ends with, "the defendant (myself) may claim an interest > > > > in the minerals in and under the land since there does not appear any > > > > assignment of the Contracts for Deed referenced in paragraph 2 from > > > > (my relative) to plantiff. > > > > > What you do you think my chances are, suppose a judge will have to > > > > rule? Should I go over to the courthouse and get copies of these > > > > Contracts for Deed before I go to an attorney or just let them handle > > > > this. Thanks. > > > > > On Oct 3, 6:42 pm, Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Do not hesitate to contact an attorney immediately. The original deed > > > > > was probably a "Quit Claim Deed" which would convey whatever interest > > > > > your deceased relative actually owned -- but without any obligation to > > > > > warrant his title should there exist problems, big or small. A "Quiet > > > > > Title Action" has been started to get a judicial determination on the > > > > > title to the land -- if you have been properly served and do not > > > > > respond, the Court can determine you are in default and possibly rule > > > > > against you. Judges will not closely look at the issue(s) if the > > > > > properly served party [or parties] does not respond to protect his > > > > > interest in the land. Supposedly the Judge cannot render judgment in > > > > > favor of the Plaintiff if the Plaintiff does not lso establish proof > > > > > of his superior legal and factual position, but no Judge looks into > > > > > the situation very close when properly served possible owners do not > > > > > respond to the legal pleadings -- failure to answer when served is > > > > > like saying you agree that the Plaintiff's legal and factual positions > > > > > are correct. > > > > > > I am not saying you have any legal claim to the land or minerals > > > > > because a Quit Claim Deed, if properly prepared, executed, and > > > > > delivered for whatever consideration, can act to convey all interest > > > > > in the property to the grantee. > > > > > > Get to a lawyer involved in real property law in the area of your > > > > > disputed land. He can do an investigation faster, and cheaper. He > > > > > also may know the rest of the story involved in this past land > > > > > transaction. > > > > > > Do not fear lawyers -- they will help you protect your interest. > > > > > > On Oct 3, 4:02 pm, twinsfan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > If anyone has had a similiar situation or information that would be > > > > > > useful it would be appreciated. A deceased relative sold a 1/4 of > > > > > > land in oil country back in the late 1980s using a "Quick Deed". > > > > > > Now > > > > > > of course there is a producing oil well on the section close to > > > > > > paying > > > > > > first royalty checks. A lawyer representing the purchasers "Mineral > > > > > > Trust" has served me with a summons to respond within 20 days of a > > > > > > no > > > > > > claim so that they may "quiet the title". This is the first that I > > > > > > was aware of that I may have any claim to any of these minerrals, > > > > > > have > > > > > > never been contacted to lease, etc. Do you think I should retain an > > > > > > attorney to respond or do so on my own, any other ideas? Does a > > > > > > Quick > > > > > > Deed for the sale of land in ND include all minerals even though > > > > > > they > > > > > > aren't listed as part of the deed? Thanks for any help!- Hide > > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bakken Shale Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bakken-shale-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
