Does anyone know if a correction deed supercedes the original deed in Texas? Looking at a property and there is a mineral reservation that references the "old" deed, not the correction deed (filed about 6mo later). Would this invalidate the mineral reservation? I am thinking it would not, but just wondering.

Assuming it was executed properly and signed by all the parties to the original deed, yes, a correction deed supersedes the original deed. That's why it's called a correction deed.

Thanks. Yes, I saw my attorney this morning and she said the same thing. However, she said that there was no "loophole" that the current owner's current deed is referencing the minerals in the "original" deed and not the "correction" deed from the previous owner.

I thought that since the current deed was referencing the superceded "original" deed, the mineral reservation might not be valid. She said the correction deed is what should have been referenced and not the "original" deed, but the mineral reservation intent was clear, regardless.

Sucks because my wife and I really liked the property, but we are unwilling to purchase with 0 mineral rights or surface language.

Bonfire97 said:

---

Thanks. Yes, I saw my attorney this morning and she said the same thing. However, she said that there was no "loophole" that the current owner's current deed is referencing the minerals in the "original" deed and not the "correction" deed from the previous owner.

I thought that since the current deed was referencing the superceded "original" deed, the mineral reservation might not be valid. She said the correction deed is what should have been referenced and not the "original" deed, but the mineral reservation intent was clear, regardless.

Sucks because my wife and I really liked the property, but we are unwilling to purchase with 0 mineral rights or surface language.

---

Yep, we really need a constitutional amendment to prohibit the reservation of mineral interest and to put a time limit on reservation of royalty interests.

I completely agree with you. Severing the mineral estate from the surface estate is completely dumb. However, this was the work of lobbyists years ago from what I understand. This benefits the oil companies to detach the surface owner from the mineral owner and make the mineral estate dominant to the surface estate. When something doesn't make any sense, follow the money.

Wouldn't it depend on what the correction deed was supposed to correct? I've seen a lot of these where it spells out what was corrected, which basically means all the other terms in the original deed are still enforceable.