Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/23) */
The Section that [redacted] is leased for is [redacted] OK. The information Boomerang Land Services confirmed Ms. [redacted]'s interest with, are the County Clerk's indexed records for Section [redacted] from inception...
through October 20, 2014. This verified title is what we determined how much interest our lease covered, and thus what the mineral owner would be paid for. Ms. [redacted] cashed the check we wrote her, and at a later date voiced concern that our research did not seem accurate. However, instead of providing us the documents that she claims must be missing from the County Clerk's records, or giving us the attorney's contact information she worked with, she chose to belittle my contractor, and threaten contacting the Revdex.com. A further breakdown of [redacted]'s ownership is below.
Pertinent documents from the County Clerk's index for section 36-11N-2E
The indexed records show title to be held in the name of [redacted] individually, owning 36.XXXXXX net mineral acres. Boomerang in doing their due diligence did discover a probate in (PB-XXXX-XXX) Tulsa County, OK, dated 9/4/2002, for [redacted] deceased. Said probate left the surviving children of [redacted] Dead, equal shares of the estate, the children being: [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted] This would provide each child 12.XXXXXX net mineral acres, within 36-11N-2E, and this is what Ms. [redacted] was paid the agreed upon $125.00 per acre for. The original Order of Payment was an estimate based upon statements from [redacted] stating she owned 47.50nma. As per the above, this proved to be inaccurate. The Order of Payment along with the letter that was mailed to her does state that the agreed upon amount is $125.00 per acre of verified ownership.
Despite the above, there is a document of record, which in our scope of legal work is considered an invalid deed. Specifically, there is a conveyance of record, dated 1/22/2002, where the grantor, [redacted] Trust u/d/t 7/8/1992, conveys all mineral interest to [redacted], daughter of [redacted] This deed is invalid, at least per the indexed chain of records, as [redacted] owned this interest individually, not in trust. This is why [redacted] probate was used to determine the distribution of this interest.
Leasing for this project ceased 11 months ago. Efforts were made by [redacted] to fully explain and understand any concerns [redacted] had, as well as explain what was needed to correct her chain of title, if she feels it is in error. [redacted] was in front of a witness ([redacted] two of the times he spoke with [redacted]. As per the witness ([redacted] clearly explained that from the indexed records, no other deeds were found, aside from those referenced above. Without her assistance in how the interest was placed into trust, we are not showing/claiming the lease we took with her to cover anything more than the paid upon 12.XXXXXX net mineral acres. We show her two brothers to own the remaining estate of [redacted] also inquired about any deeds that have not been recorded or recorded in other counties that may help. It is our goal and always our goal to help find the true mineral owner. [redacted] also informed [redacted] that we could contact her attorney to better help and understand this, but this information was never disclosed. [redacted] also informed [redacted] that our client ceased leasing activity many months ago due to market conditions outside of our control. He even went on further to state that if leasing opens or our client determines they want to drill a well with their interest, we could potentially help in correcting the chain of title- if she provides any missing documents.
In closing, Boomerang and our client are only reflecting the lease in our records to cover 12.XXXXXXNMA. If another company wants to lease [redacted] for a different amount, nothing is barring them from doing so. Likewise, the remainder of her mother's estate, which we show to be held by her brothers, based upon probate records, is not under lease. As [redacted] never mailed copies of any missing documents not discovered in our research, or assisted in anyway with confirming her interest, we assumed the matter to be settled upon her last discussion with [redacted]
Sincerely
[redacted]
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/12/01) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The above contains many details that are not true.
According to the Trustee's Deed re the [redacted]
[redacted] Trust, dated 12/24/98, and signed by my brother, [redacted] Successor Trustee,
where my brother as Grantor, and me as Trantee grants "all right, title, and interest of the Trust in all real estate in Pottawatomie County". I can provide a copy of this document. When my grandmother passed away, she left all of these leases to my Mother, and my Mother's sister. This man is in total error to say that he paid me 1/3 of the interest, which is all he should pay because of my two brothers. The above document was filed in all6 Counties individually by my Mother's Attorney, Mr. [redacted] of Tulsa OK. Also, I did give this company the name of my mother's Attorney, and even the phone number. I offered to send copies of this document to them, but Mr. [redacted] finally said to me on the phone "I don't have the money to pay you anyway."In addition, the above refers to my Mother's Trust dated 7/8/92, BUT LEAVES OUT THE DATE OF THE AMENDED TRUST OF 12/24/98, interestingly enough.I also have at least one other active lease recorded in Pottawatomie County with none of the above problems, and none of the above claims. If this "cloud" on the title is true, then why did Boomerang Oil ever send me a "paid up Lease" to sign to begin with, and why did the other two oil companies not find any "cloud" on this Title? Nor has anyone, except the above, ever say or imply that the dividing of any lease payments should be 1/3 to me and equally to my two brothers. The reason??? That answer goes back to the Trustee's Deed on file with each county in which I have an interest. I was there in Tulsa when my Mother passed [redacted] with both of my brothers, who made the decision to have the leases in my name only. Mr. [redacted] phone number is XXX-XXX-XXXX, and I will be forwarding the above complaint to his office. Additionally, the amount agreed on in the Order of Payment was $5,937.50; divided by 3 is $1,979.16. THE CONCLUSION IS IN 'THEIR DILIGENCE TO UNCOVER A PROBATE', THEY MISSED MY MOTHERS AMENDED TRUST DATED 7/8/92.I also spoke to [redacted] and a person named [redacted] in Pottawatomie County regarding the Title issue and I was assured by both of them, that I did not need to send anymore documents, as they had the Trustee's Deed, which, on my copy at the top has [redacted] name on it, as Clerk, and a recorded seal, plus my brother, [redacted] signature and the DATE OF MY MOTHER'S RESTATED TRUST OF 12/24/98 above his signature. They assured me this was all they needed. It is true that each legal description provided to me by Mr. [redacted] which clearly states, that I OWN A 1/2 INTEREST IN THE FOLLOWING: the other half BELONGING TO MY MOTHER'S SISTER; NOT MY BROTHERS, [redacted] AND [redacted] The total acreage for the legal description is 70; I WOULD TELL ANYONE INQUIRING THAT I OWN A 1/2 INTEREST. At NO TIME did I represent to anyone that the acreage was 47.50, as indicated on the "Order of Payment, which also reads Gross Acres: 95. It also reads that "Boomerang ..will make payment as indicated herein by check within 60 days of receipt." Mr. [redacted], former owner, did not at any time, question the Title, or tell me there was a "cloud" on the Title. Why should I mail documents to someone who says "I can't pay you anyway?", when in fact, I did describe the Trustee's Deed to Mr. [redacted] despite the so-called "witness" of Mr. [redacted] I shall decline their "potential help in correcting the chain of title", because this is not needed. I would be glad to furnish Revdex.com with a copy of the Trustee's Deed, recorded in Pottawatomie County.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/12/13) */
Boomerang Land stands by our previous statement from 11/23/2015, that the [redacted] Dean Trust u/d/t/ 7/8/1992 never owned mineral interest in Section 36-11N-2E, Pottawatomie County, OK. [redacted] deceased, owned minerals in said section as an individual, and no conveyance was ever recorded placing her property into trust. Furthermore, Probate Case No. PB-XXXX-XXX, dated September 4, 2002 (attached) makes no mention of the [redacted] Trust u/d/t 7/8/1992 and indeed the said Probate states that "It is therefore ordered that the following persons are determined to be the only heirs at law of the said [redacted] Deceased, namely, [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted] and that distribution of the probate estate of [redacted] Deceased be made to these named heirs equally, according to the terms of Tit. 84, Okla. Stat. 213, Para. B., Sec. 2 Subsec. A., and there was no pretermitted heir."
Therefore our title research indicated that [redacted] J. [redacted] owned and was paid for 12.XXXXXXX net mineral acres (1/3 of the total estate of [redacted] Dean) based upon the indexed records for the property in section 36-11N-2E, Pottawatomie Co., Oklahoma. If [redacted] would like us to place an affidavit of record stating as to the amount of acreage our client claims under said lease, we will do so. Nothing is preventing Ms. [redacted] from leasing remaining property she feels she has claim to.
In closing, we are not disputing that Ms. [redacted] may potentially have claim to other property, but we base our records upon those of the Oklahoma Courthouse system. As of 12/11/2015, her property records recorded against this parcel of land remain the same as indicated above. Technically the property still resides in her deceased mother's name, but as referenced prior, we obtained the probate proceedings for [redacted] which distributed her individual property.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2015/12/15) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
On the Lease I originally signed on Sept. 30th, 2014; the gross acreage is indicated as 95. I own a 1/2 interest, which is indicated on THEIR ORDER OF PAYMENT AS NET ACRES, WHICH IS 47.50. Obviously, Boomerang is disputing the acreage, as well as the Title. According to my records, given to me by my Attorney, Mr. [redacted] in Tulsa, OK, the 95 total A for the legal description of T36, 11N, R E, is correct. These documents are "Legal Descriptions of Mineral Interests" which my Mother, [redacted] owned at the time of her death. If this legal description is wrong, then so are all the others given to me by my Attorney! It is rather unbelievable that an Attorney would make such an error! Therefore, 1/3 of the agreed upon amount equals $1,979.XXXXX, AND 1/3 of 47.50 equals 15.XXXXXXX, not their above figures.THESE QUOTES ARE FROM THE PAPERWORK OF BOOMERANG LAND SERVICES; as well as the legal descriptions given to me by my Mother's Attorney. It is still interesting to me that I am NOW regularly being paid for S 29; 6N;3E of Pottawatomie County and S2;9N;4E in Pottawatomie by a large oil Company- I can provide that paperwork, if necessary, and they have been making payments to me since before 2009, and their legal descriptions exactly FIT THE ONES PROVIDED TO ME BY MY MOTHER'S ATTORNEY.
If Boomerang wants to settle with me, then I suggest that they pay me the remaining $473.97, which equals 1/3; and then pay my two brothers $1,979.16, which WAS THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT. I will happily provide the addresses of my brother, [redacted] and [redacted] That being said, Mr. [redacted] is working on a document currently which will clear the Title WITHOUT QUESTION. Boomerang then has a choice- either wait for the Title to be cleared, or pay the remaining amounts to the three of us.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/23) */
The Section that [redacted] is leased for is [redacted] OK. The information Boomerang Land Services confirmed Ms. [redacted]'s interest with, are the County Clerk's indexed records for Section [redacted] from inception...
through October 20, 2014. This verified title is what we determined how much interest our lease covered, and thus what the mineral owner would be paid for. Ms. [redacted] cashed the check we wrote her, and at a later date voiced concern that our research did not seem accurate. However, instead of providing us the documents that she claims must be missing from the County Clerk's records, or giving us the attorney's contact information she worked with, she chose to belittle my contractor, and threaten contacting the Revdex.com. A further breakdown of [redacted]'s ownership is below.
Pertinent documents from the County Clerk's index for section 36-11N-2E
The indexed records show title to be held in the name of [redacted] individually, owning 36.XXXXXX net mineral acres. Boomerang in doing their due diligence did discover a probate in (PB-XXXX-XXX) Tulsa County, OK, dated 9/4/2002, for [redacted] deceased. Said probate left the surviving children of [redacted] Dead, equal shares of the estate, the children being: [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted] This would provide each child 12.XXXXXX net mineral acres, within 36-11N-2E, and this is what Ms. [redacted] was paid the agreed upon $125.00 per acre for. The original Order of Payment was an estimate based upon statements from [redacted] stating she owned 47.50nma. As per the above, this proved to be inaccurate. The Order of Payment along with the letter that was mailed to her does state that the agreed upon amount is $125.00 per acre of verified ownership.
Despite the above, there is a document of record, which in our scope of legal work is considered an invalid deed. Specifically, there is a conveyance of record, dated 1/22/2002, where the grantor, [redacted] Trust u/d/t 7/8/1992, conveys all mineral interest to [redacted], daughter of [redacted] This deed is invalid, at least per the indexed chain of records, as [redacted] owned this interest individually, not in trust. This is why [redacted] probate was used to determine the distribution of this interest.
Leasing for this project ceased 11 months ago. Efforts were made by [redacted] to fully explain and understand any concerns [redacted] had, as well as explain what was needed to correct her chain of title, if she feels it is in error. [redacted] was in front of a witness ([redacted] two of the times he spoke with [redacted]. As per the witness ([redacted] clearly explained that from the indexed records, no other deeds were found, aside from those referenced above. Without her assistance in how the interest was placed into trust, we are not showing/claiming the lease we took with her to cover anything more than the paid upon 12.XXXXXX net mineral acres. We show her two brothers to own the remaining estate of [redacted] also inquired about any deeds that have not been recorded or recorded in other counties that may help. It is our goal and always our goal to help find the true mineral owner. [redacted] also informed [redacted] that we could contact her attorney to better help and understand this, but this information was never disclosed. [redacted] also informed [redacted] that our client ceased leasing activity many months ago due to market conditions outside of our control. He even went on further to state that if leasing opens or our client determines they want to drill a well with their interest, we could potentially help in correcting the chain of title- if she provides any missing documents.
In closing, Boomerang and our client are only reflecting the lease in our records to cover 12.XXXXXXNMA. If another company wants to lease [redacted] for a different amount, nothing is barring them from doing so. Likewise, the remainder of her mother's estate, which we show to be held by her brothers, based upon probate records, is not under lease. As [redacted] never mailed copies of any missing documents not discovered in our research, or assisted in anyway with confirming her interest, we assumed the matter to be settled upon her last discussion with [redacted]
Sincerely
[redacted]
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/12/01) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The above contains many details that are not true.
According to the Trustee's Deed re the [redacted]
[redacted] Trust, dated 12/24/98, and signed by my brother, [redacted] Successor Trustee,
where my brother as Grantor, and me as Trantee grants "all right, title, and interest of the Trust in all real estate in Pottawatomie County". I can provide a copy of this document. When my grandmother passed away, she left all of these leases to my Mother, and my Mother's sister. This man is in total error to say that he paid me 1/3 of the interest, which is all he should pay because of my two brothers. The above document was filed in all6 Counties individually by my Mother's Attorney, Mr. [redacted] of Tulsa OK. Also, I did give this company the name of my mother's Attorney, and even the phone number. I offered to send copies of this document to them, but Mr. [redacted] finally said to me on the phone "I don't have the money to pay you anyway."In addition, the above refers to my Mother's Trust dated 7/8/92, BUT LEAVES OUT THE DATE OF THE AMENDED TRUST OF 12/24/98, interestingly enough.I also have at least one other active lease recorded in Pottawatomie County with none of the above problems, and none of the above claims. If this "cloud" on the title is true, then why did Boomerang Oil ever send me a "paid up Lease" to sign to begin with, and why did the other two oil companies not find any "cloud" on this Title? Nor has anyone, except the above, ever say or imply that the dividing of any lease payments should be 1/3 to me and equally to my two brothers. The reason??? That answer goes back to the Trustee's Deed on file with each county in which I have an interest. I was there in Tulsa when my Mother passed [redacted] with both of my brothers, who made the decision to have the leases in my name only. Mr. [redacted] phone number is XXX-XXX-XXXX, and I will be forwarding the above complaint to his office. Additionally, the amount agreed on in the Order of Payment was $5,937.50; divided by 3 is $1,979.16. THE CONCLUSION IS IN 'THEIR DILIGENCE TO UNCOVER A PROBATE', THEY MISSED MY MOTHERS AMENDED TRUST DATED 7/8/92.I also spoke to [redacted] and a person named [redacted] in Pottawatomie County regarding the Title issue and I was assured by both of them, that I did not need to send anymore documents, as they had the Trustee's Deed, which, on my copy at the top has [redacted] name on it, as Clerk, and a recorded seal, plus my brother, [redacted] signature and the DATE OF MY MOTHER'S RESTATED TRUST OF 12/24/98 above his signature. They assured me this was all they needed. It is true that each legal description provided to me by Mr. [redacted] which clearly states, that I OWN A 1/2 INTEREST IN THE FOLLOWING: the other half BELONGING TO MY MOTHER'S SISTER; NOT MY BROTHERS, [redacted] AND [redacted] The total acreage for the legal description is 70; I WOULD TELL ANYONE INQUIRING THAT I OWN A 1/2 INTEREST. At NO TIME did I represent to anyone that the acreage was 47.50, as indicated on the "Order of Payment, which also reads Gross Acres: 95. It also reads that "Boomerang ..will make payment as indicated herein by check within 60 days of receipt." Mr. [redacted], former owner, did not at any time, question the Title, or tell me there was a "cloud" on the Title. Why should I mail documents to someone who says "I can't pay you anyway?", when in fact, I did describe the Trustee's Deed to Mr. [redacted] despite the so-called "witness" of Mr. [redacted] I shall decline their "potential help in correcting the chain of title", because this is not needed. I would be glad to furnish Revdex.com with a copy of the Trustee's Deed, recorded in Pottawatomie County.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/12/13) */
Boomerang Land stands by our previous statement from 11/23/2015, that the [redacted] Dean Trust u/d/t/ 7/8/1992 never owned mineral interest in Section 36-11N-2E, Pottawatomie County, OK. [redacted] deceased, owned minerals in said section as an individual, and no conveyance was ever recorded placing her property into trust. Furthermore, Probate Case No. PB-XXXX-XXX, dated September 4, 2002 (attached) makes no mention of the [redacted] Trust u/d/t 7/8/1992 and indeed the said Probate states that "It is therefore ordered that the following persons are determined to be the only heirs at law of the said [redacted] Deceased, namely, [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted] and that distribution of the probate estate of [redacted] Deceased be made to these named heirs equally, according to the terms of Tit. 84, Okla. Stat. 213, Para. B., Sec. 2 Subsec. A., and there was no pretermitted heir."
Therefore our title research indicated that [redacted] J. [redacted] owned and was paid for 12.XXXXXXX net mineral acres (1/3 of the total estate of [redacted] Dean) based upon the indexed records for the property in section 36-11N-2E, Pottawatomie Co., Oklahoma. If [redacted] would like us to place an affidavit of record stating as to the amount of acreage our client claims under said lease, we will do so. Nothing is preventing Ms. [redacted] from leasing remaining property she feels she has claim to.
In closing, we are not disputing that Ms. [redacted] may potentially have claim to other property, but we base our records upon those of the Oklahoma Courthouse system. As of 12/11/2015, her property records recorded against this parcel of land remain the same as indicated above. Technically the property still resides in her deceased mother's name, but as referenced prior, we obtained the probate proceedings for [redacted] which distributed her individual property.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2015/12/15) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
On the Lease I originally signed on Sept. 30th, 2014; the gross acreage is indicated as 95. I own a 1/2 interest, which is indicated on THEIR ORDER OF PAYMENT AS NET ACRES, WHICH IS 47.50. Obviously, Boomerang is disputing the acreage, as well as the Title. According to my records, given to me by my Attorney, Mr. [redacted] in Tulsa, OK, the 95 total A for the legal description of T36, 11N, R E, is correct. These documents are "Legal Descriptions of Mineral Interests" which my Mother, [redacted] owned at the time of her death. If this legal description is wrong, then so are all the others given to me by my Attorney! It is rather unbelievable that an Attorney would make such an error! Therefore, 1/3 of the agreed upon amount equals $1,979.XXXXX, AND 1/3 of 47.50 equals 15.XXXXXXX, not their above figures.THESE QUOTES ARE FROM THE PAPERWORK OF BOOMERANG LAND SERVICES; as well as the legal descriptions given to me by my Mother's Attorney. It is still interesting to me that I am NOW regularly being paid for S 29; 6N;3E of Pottawatomie County and S2;9N;4E in Pottawatomie by a large oil Company- I can provide that paperwork, if necessary, and they have been making payments to me since before 2009, and their legal descriptions exactly FIT THE ONES PROVIDED TO ME BY MY MOTHER'S ATTORNEY.
If Boomerang wants to settle with me, then I suggest that they pay me the remaining $473.97, which equals 1/3; and then pay my two brothers $1,979.16, which WAS THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT. I will happily provide the addresses of my brother, [redacted] and [redacted] That being said, Mr. [redacted] is working on a document currently which will clear the Title WITHOUT QUESTION. Boomerang then has a choice- either wait for the Title to be cleared, or pay the remaining amounts to the three of us.