Diederich v. Ware
288 S.W.2d 643, 6 Oil & Gas Rep. 306, 1956 Ky. LEXIS 270 (1956)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where mineral rights have been severed from surface rights, a surface owner can acquire title to the entire mineral estate under a tract of land by adverse possession through the open, notorious, and continuous operation of wells on a portion of that tract for the statutory period, provided the possession is under color of title.
Facts:
- In 1859, G. W. Webb and others conveyed the exclusive oil rights under their adjoining tracts of land to William P. Mellon and Algernon S. Gray via a recorded deed, severing the mineral estate from the surface.
- E. C. Ware eventually acquired title to the surface of a 56-acre portion of this land through a chain of title from G. W. Webb, but none of the conveyances in his chain mentioned the 1859 mineral deed.
- In 1923, B. H. Blanton, Ware's predecessor in title, leased the oil rights on the 56-acre tract to the Mid South Oil Company.
- In 1924, the Mid South Oil Company drilled two oil wells in a corner of the 56-acre tract.
- From 1924 until the filing of this suit (over 30 years), the two wells were operated openly, notoriously, and continuously, with royalties being paid to the surface owners, including Ware.
- John T. Diederich later acquired an interest in the 1859 mineral deed from the heirs and assigns of Mellon and Gray.
Procedural Posture:
- John T. Diederich filed suit in the trial court seeking a declaration of his rights to royalties from two oil wells on a 56-acre tract owned by E. C. Ware.
- The trial court adjudged that Ware had acquired title to the oil under the entire 56-acre tract by adverse possession.
- Diederich, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the open, notorious, and continuous operation of oil wells on a portion of a tract of land, under color of a surface deed that does not mention a prior severance of mineral rights, constitute adverse possession of the mineral estate under the entire tract?
Opinions:
Majority - Milliken, Chief Justice
Yes, the operation of wells on a portion of the tract constitutes adverse possession of the entire mineral estate. When mineral rights are severed, the rules of constructive possession applicable to surface estates also apply to mineral estates. A surface owner who operates wells under a general warranty deed that does not except the prior severed mineral rights is operating under 'color of title.' Therefore, the actual, open, and hostile possession of a part of the mineral estate extends constructively to the boundaries of the entire mineral estate described in the color of title instrument. The operation of the wells for the statutory period was sufficient to repudiate the presumptive trust relationship with the mineral owner and establish title to the oil under the entire 56-acre tract.
Dissenting - Sims, Judge
No, adverse possession of fugacious minerals like oil should be limited to the minerals actually produced. The concept of 'color of title' extending possession to surface boundaries is inapplicable to fugacious minerals because their underground boundaries cannot be defined and they cannot be possessed until brought to the surface. An oil well owner possesses only the oil produced, regardless of where it drains from. Therefore, adverse possession should only apply to the oil and gas extracted from the wells, not the entire mineral estate under the tract.
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacts the security of severed mineral interests by extending the doctrine of constructive adverse possession to fugacious minerals like oil and gas. By holding that a surface deed can serve as 'color of title' for the mineral estate, the court makes it easier for surface owners to acquire title to severed minerals through limited activity on the land. This departs from prior precedent suggesting adverse possession of minerals was limited to the area actually mined, thereby increasing the burden on holders of dormant mineral rights to monitor surface activity to protect their interests.
