Property Tax Credit

[eyexer]

What takes precedence the surface rights or mineral rights ?

I’m not sure what you’re asking. In ND the surface owner essentially can’t prevent minerals from being taken. However, the surface owner can refuse to allow easements for things such as electrical feeds to locations as well as pipelines. They’re forced to truck it all off and use generator power.

 

[shorthairsrus]

I have made several inquiries----- as i thought alot of people are not aware of this credit.

 

[Obi-Wan]

I’m not sure what you’re asking. In ND the surface owner essentially can’t prevent minerals from being taken. However, the surface owner can refuse to allow easements for things such as electrical feeds to locations as well as pipelines. They’re forced to truck it all off and use generator power.

I feel they never should have been separated in the first place. You seem to be for land owner rights but as it stands now the land owner could lose the use to some or all of his land at the whim of the mineral right owner and have zero to say about it. I do know they will get compensation but at What cost to the land owners livelihood or his intentions for the land. Wasn‘t there an issue in ND with separating hunting rights from the land and which party had precedents ?

 

[eyexer]

I feel they never should have been separated in the first place. You seem to be for land owner rights but as it stands now the land owner could lose the use to some or all of his land at the whim of the mineral right owner and have zero to say about it. I do know they will get compensation but at What cost to the land owners livelihood or his intentions for the land. Wasn‘t there an issue in ND with separating hunting rights from the land and which party had precedents ?

That is a problem. I don’t feel they get compensated enough. Oil companies can be somewhat flexible on well locations on the lease to accommodate the land owner. There have been regulation put in place to help accommodate land/home owners to some degree.

 

[Allen]

Yes, I think the legislature weighed in a few years ago to prevent separating hunting rights from the surface rights. This is not a very good comparison though, IMHO.

Mineral rights owners have a legal right to access and develop their property. Are there conflicts between the two? Absolutely, but there's not really much a surface owner can do to cause those mineral rights to become worthless. Hunting rights, again, are different. If I was able to sell the hunting rights to my land, there's little the owner of the hunting rights could do to prevent me from making his hunting rights worth nothing. I could, for example, till my land from property line to property line, or I could turn it into a rural residential development. Either way, I could make it so no wildlife exists on it.

 

[eyexer]

I feel they never should have been separated in the first place. You seem to be for land owner rights but as it stands now the land owner could lose the use to some or all of his land at the whim of the mineral right owner and have zero to say about it. I do know they will get compensation but at What cost to the land owners livelihood or his intentions for the land. Wasn‘t there an issue in ND with separating hunting rights from the land and which party had precedents ?

When the original landowner decided to sell the minerals and keep the land it was his choice. And from that day on whenever someone bought land without the minerals that was their choice also. You don’t have to buy the land if you don’t like the fact the minerals aren’t coming with it.

 

[db-2]

FLB repo my great uncles 3 quarters back in the thirties. My dad bought the land from FLB in later years.
They kept 50% of mineral rights and as dad said he had no choice on that. It was the way it was, and the price was less than $3,000. Never gave a thought about mineral rights. All he wanted was the land for winter pasture for the livestock. I doubt if they have any value today.
No idea if they have sold them or still own them. Not sure what even happen to FLB (Ag Credit).
I question how many farmers saved their land back in those years by selling mineral rights when they have little value.
Now on some land as mineral rights pass down who the hell knows even themselves who owns some of these mineral rights. And gravel is not a mineral.
Yes, it's an asset a landowner owns but for me they should of stay with the land.
It is a mess that will become a bigger mess on who owns what as people pass their assets down to how many kids and then down again without even knowing they had mineral rights until someone searches the records for some reason and then to find them and what they may have done with them if anything.

Needs to be cleaned up before my great-great grandkids twice and three times removed finds out they own mineral rights from back in the thirties. db

 

[eyexer]

FLB repo my great uncles 3 quarters back in the thirties. My dad bought the land from FLB in later years.
They kept 50% of mineral rights and as dad said he had no choice on that. It was the way it was, and the price was less than $3,000. Never gave a thought about mineral rights. All he wanted was the land for winter pasture for the livestock. I doubt if they have any value today.
No idea if they have sold them or still own them. Not sure what even happen to FLB (Ag Credit).
I question how many farmers saved their land back in those years by selling mineral rights when they have little value.
Now on some land as mineral rights pass down who the hell knows even themselves who owns some of these mineral rights. And gravel is not a mineral.
Yes, it's an asset a landowner owns but for me they should of stay with the land.
It is a mess that will become a bigger mess on who owns what as people pass their assets down to how many kids and then down again without even knowing they had mineral rights until someone searches the records for some reason and then to find them and what they may have done with them if anything.

Needs to be cleaned up before my great-great grandkids twice and three times removed finds out they own mineral rights from back in the thirties. db

It’s well documented who has what.

 

[Davey Crockett]

Needs to be cleaned up before my great-great grandkids twice and three times removed finds out they own mineral rights from back in the thirties. db

Way before then so many people will be attached to those minerals that they won't be worth anyone's time to even make a phone call about them . Not sure what will become of this mess.

 

[db-2]

So, when Uncle Joe die, and he left all to me including his mineral rights it is well documented at the courthouse that i own those mineral rights under my name that i never knew he owned?

And when i die and by a will leave those rights to my kids it will again be well documented they own the mineral rights? The clerk wrote that under that land off my will or his will? db

 

[db-2]

So FLB got them because the loan was not paid in full or for a lower interest rate at the time.
Does BND own mineral rights and how did they get them?



Just like the tractions button on my vehicle. Have no clue what it does and no reason to learn what it does. db

 

[Allen]

db-2

Every land and mineral sale is recorded at the county courthouse. It's not necessarily difficult, or fun, to trace the ownership lineage of minerals and surface acres.

If it isn't recorded, the transaction never took place.

 

[db-2]

Your right, if it is not recorded then it never happen until it is recorded. But Uncle Joe who no longer is with us was recorded. db

 

[espringers]

if he left it to you in a will, did anyone ever carry out those wishes by properly transferring title to you?

 

[db-2]

Maybe but maybe not.
It just an opinion that banks, be it FLB or BND, should not have kept mineral rights but been transfer to the citizens. Not going to change now. Accept it's an asset that can be bought or sold.
At one time they had little value but then oil was discovered and who knows what other minerals in the future. Someone came out well but in a lot of cases not the landowner. They just got to watch them dig for them out. db

 

[espringers]

well you need to get that done if it wasn't.

 

[riverview]

our mineral rights have been the states since the early 1900s

 

[NDbowman]

I agree, separating them is one of the most backwards things that I know of. minerals should have stayed with the land 100%. I can't belive that in the 30s somebody with half a brain didn't step up to the plate and educate the people what they were doing.

Kind of like the wetland easements that were sold in the past. Seller got a little money for a perpetual easment that is a PIA for future generations.

 

[NDbowman]

Your right, if it is not recorded then it never happen until it is recorded. But Uncle Joe who no longer is with us was recorded. db

Its all in the abstracts of the land. Can be hard to follow but a lawyer can figure it out for you. Also there is a way a lawyer can get mineral rights back that have been sold off but haven't had any activity in years. Mainly that is for mineral rights that were sold to some company that is no longer around anymore.

 

[db-2]

In 1960 my parents got $3,000 from game and fish to never drain or burn on 7 quarters of land. Bought a new 1960 DeSoto with the funds. It was discussed at the kitchen table and i remember voting no. db