PERMFILE100850 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

containing the reservation as required in Ferrell, supra, the inherent difficulty of determining whether or no[ sand and gravel is included in such a straight mineral reservation becomes obvious. Unless the intent of the parties at the time of creat- ing the mineral reservation is clear, unambiguous and unequivo- cal, the difficulties and danger of ascertaining the intent of the parties becomes monumental. In the instant case, the 1989 deed from Plaintiff to Fedrick-Witt is a little easier since the parties are presumably still around. In the case of Plaintiff/Intervenors, dealing with documents and reservations created 30, 40 and 50 years ago, [he intent of the parties at that time becomes extremely difficult to ascertain, and in itself becomes a kind of secret, springing, inchoate interest that only comes into play depending upon subsequent purchasers, personalities and money. How does a subsequent purchaser of the surface rights protect themselves from this? For example, in this case Mr. Shaw now believes his grandparents meant to reserve sand and gravel as part of the straight mineral reservation in the original warranty deed. The Defendant in this case is himself an oil, gas and mineral attorney with several years experience. Defendant received the title insurance commitment with all the reservation language, and did not believe the reservation language included sand and gravel. Nothing in the documents reviewed by the Court indicate any information to the contrary and no document reviewed by the Court evidences intent of any of the patties to reserve sand and gravel. When a purchaser, such as the Defendant in this case, relies upon the record title which discloses no apparent reservation of sand and gravel, the Court finds that the intent of the parties to include sand and gravel within a straight mineral reservation must be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal. To rule otherwise defeats the purpose of the Colorado recording statute and only promotes lawsuits. While the Court needs to accommodate [he particular and varied interests of the different estate holders, the language creating those separate and distinct estates, and what is or is not included within each estate, should be sufficiently clear so that subsequent interest holders, and the courts, are not reduced to guess work as to the nature and extent of any particular estate. If nothing else, the law should at leas[ be trustworthy, predictable and have a degree of constancy so that parties are not reduced to litigation to determine every question and for parties to be able to rely upon the Colorado recording statute and the status of title to deter- mine their respective rights, responsibilities and obligations. In this case, the Court finds that the language con- tained in the mineral reservations is not clear, is ambiguous and provides no notice to a subsequent purchaser that sand and gravel was included in [he mineral reservation and has been severed from the surface estate. As discussed earlier, while it appears 14