Thanks again Jon - I'm on my way to ND now - will be at the courthouse Monday morning getting copies of the two Contract for Deeds and hand delivering everything to an attorney Monday afternoon - this should be interesting, I'll let you know what the judge decides.
On Oct 4, 12:23 am, Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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- > > > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
