PERMFILE100850 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 19, 1989, between Plaintiffs and Fedrick, provided that "all oil, gas and mineral rights owned by the sellers (the Plaintiffs) shall be conveyed to the purchaser at closing." Plaintiffs testified this was in error and that the legal description denominated as Exhibit A to the contract was correct and reserved all minerals in or under said mining claims, including, but no[ limited to, metals, oil, gas, coal, stone and mineral rights, mining rights, and easement rights or other matters relating thereto, whether expressed or implied." The actual deed dated May 30, 1989, and signed by Plaintiffs Groom and Godwin individu- ally and in their capacity as co-trustees of the San Miguel Ranch trust, conveyed the placer claims on page 2 of the deed and including the following exception: "Except all minerals in or under said mining claims including, but not limited to, metals, oil, gas, coal, stone, mineral rights, and mining rights." The testimony indicated that Plaintiffs had internal discussions concerning the sale of this property, including several discussions about keeping all of the mineral rights, including sand and gravel rights, and that the intention in the deed to Fedrick was to convey surface rights only and to keep everything else of value including the mineral rights and sand and gravel. The testimony indicated this was the specific reason to include the words "stone" and "mining rights" in the excep- tion. Plaintiffs testified that the actual reservation language came out of Plaintiffs' law office and that this legal descrip- tion was prepared with the intent to reserve the minerals and sand and gravel. The actual deed (Exhibit 10) was prepared by the buyers' attorney. In reviewing the contract between Plaintiffs and Fedricks of April 19, 1989, and the deed that was actually issued, Plaintiff's Exhibit 10, there are three references to mineral reservations in those documents. Paragraph 21 of the contract initially provides that Plaintiffs will convey all of their oil, gas and mineral rights to the buyer. Exhibit A to the contract, which is the legal description prepared in Plaintiffs' law office, provides for a reservation of mineral rights and other miscellaneous matters, and finally, the deed itself con- tains a slightly different version of the mineral reservation. In other words, Plaintiffs addressed what they were going [o reserve to themselves three different times, and at no time did Plaintiffs specify sand and gravel. white the warranty deed of May 30, 1989 was apparently prepared by Fedrick's attorney, the legal description together with the reservation language was prepared by Plaintiffs. Plaintiff testified he did not have direct contact with either Fedrick or Wit[, and there is nothing in [he record to indicate [hat Fedrick understood that sand and gravel was being reserved by Plaintiffs, or that any discussions were ever held with Fedrick to inform him that sand and gravel was being reserved. 5