If you`ve smoked, dabbed or enjoyed this variety, Rox, let us know! Leave a comment. ¶7 Rox sought summary judgment and the surface owners responded and also sought summary judgment. The District Court rendered summary judgment in favour of the surface owners and, in its order, awarded nineteen sixteen of the minerals to Rox, Inc. and seventeen thirty-sixths to the surface owners and non-defendants. The appeal was filed pursuant to section 1.36 of Supreme Court Regulation 12 O.S. 2001, c. 15, Schedule 1. No appeal has been ordered and consideration of the appeal is limited to the minutes actually submitted to the court of first instance. Id. to Rule 1.36(g). Feeling limited by Ford v.

Raab, ¶2 This is an appeal against the summary judgment of the trial court in favour of the defendants. Summary judgment is a pre-trial procedure in which the essential facts are not disputed, Pickens v. Tulsa Metropolitan Ministry, Order online. Same-day collection or delivery in Russia ¶11 In the 1955 deeds of renunciation, the licensors «reserved for them the entire portion [of the oil, gas and other] minerals currently held by the constituents.» We must determine the interest in the oil, gas and minerals extracted that were in the possession of the concessionaires at the time the 1955 withdrawal documents were signed. In doing so, we examine the 1927 mineral charter to determine what interest the licensors retained in the minerals extracted. An act, such as the 1927 Mining Act, which is issued for a certain period of time and so long after oil and gas extraction, transfers determinable fees in the event of a conditional limit. Ludwig v. William K. Warren Foundation, ¶13 In the 1927 Mining Act, the licensor retained half of the minerals transferred to Rox, Inc. In the 1927 Mining Act, the settlor transferred a determinable royalty for the conditional restriction to the other half of the minerals and retained the possibility of cancellation. The 1955 waiver deeds effectively reserved the possibility of a reverter, which was saleable and also went through the chain of ownership to Rox, Inc.

No interest in the extracted minerals was transferred to the surface owners. Ownership of the transferred minerals should have been silenced by the plaintiff, Rox, Inc. ¶5 In 1956, the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce transferred ownership to the American First Title and Trust Company by deed of guarantee. This deed of guarantee, as well as subsequent deeds of this chain of ownership, contains the following or similar wording: «Less, and with the exception of all oil, gas, minerals that may be produced from all property described and transferred here.» Surface owners trace their title back to the 1955 deeds of renunciation and claim ownership of minerals based on them. OF CERTIORARI AT THE CIVIL COURT OF APPEAL, SECTION I ¶0 In a 1927 mining deed, the grantor transferred half of the underlying mining interests to certain properties for a period of ten years and as long as the oil and gas were extracted. In the 1955 deeds of renunciation, the settlors transferred ownership, with the exception of «all oil, gas and other minerals, all of these minerals, maintaining ownership of the constituents, being reserved by them.» The plaintiff sought to appease ownership of the minerals, arguing that the 1955 waiver deeds clearly excluded the possibility of taking over the minerals from the concession. Both the plaintiff and the defendants sought summary judgment. The District Court granted the defendants` request. The Court of Appeal upheld.

The Court upheld the certiorari. Met een serie aan vodcasts deelt RoX Legal haar kennis over onderwerpen die het team van RoX en haar netwerk in de dagelijkse praktijk tegenkomt. ¶3 In 1927, Jennie Clauer was the owner of the surface and mining interests on the property. 3. In December 1927, Jennie Clauer and her husband signed a mining deed transferring an undivided one-quarter interest in the minerals to the Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Company and a one-quarter undivided interest to the Foster Petroleum Corporation (minerals transferred) for «a period of ten (10) years and as long as oil and gas are produced from these lands.» OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL QUASHED; THE DISTRICT COURT`S JUDGEMENT WAS SET ASIDE; GUARD. ¶9 When deciding whether to reserve or exclude an interest in a document, the intention of the parties is paramount. Ritter v. Kimble,. ¶8 Rox argued that the reservation contained in the two 1955 waiver deeds transferring ownership to the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce reserved the interest in falling back on the transferred minerals underlying the property. Based on Ford v. Raab, ¶14 The opinion of the Court of Appeal is set aside.

The judgment of the Amtsgericht is set aside and the case is adjourned in accordance with that opinion. Timothy C. Dowd, Elias, Books, Brown & Nelson, Oklahoma City Oklahoma, for applicant/appellant. Fred M. Buxton, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for respondent/appellant, New Dominion, L.L.C. Gary S. Chilton, Holladay, Chilton & DeGiusti, P.L.L.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for respondent/appellant, Oklahoma Title Clearing Corp. and Norma L. Doerfler. Craig W.

Hoster and Mark D. Christiansen, Crowe & Dunlevy, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for respondent/appellant, GingerLynn, Inc. and Hoster Brothers, Inc. 3 It appears that Henry Irving Clauer died before the acts were executed and his interests transferred to the surviving tenants. 2 The facts that led to the transfer of the assets are disputed, but these facts are not substantial. Eventually, Mary Jane Herring`s last name changed to Funken. We will call her Mary Jane Herring. With the exception of all oil, gas and other minerals, all of these minerals, now belonging to the licensors, being reserved by them, with the right of entry and exit for the extraction and extraction thereof. The problem with traditional measurement techniques is that they focus too much on the here and now, ignoring the simple fact that credit union members have more choices than ever when it comes to their financial partners. They can maintain a master deposit account with a credit union or have a car loan with you – which sounds good on the credit union`s balance sheet – but bring their mortgage or wealth management business to a user-friendly financial technology if they feel the credit union can`t meet those needs.

This results in a loss of future revenue for the credit union, but measures of return on investment may not show this. Rox Petroleum, L.L.C., Applicant/Appellant, v. New Dominion, L.L.C.; GingerLynn, Inc.; Oklahoma Title Clearing Corporation; Norma L. Doerfler; and Hoster Brothers, Inc., respondent/appellant, and Markeeta A. Hopwood, defendant. ¶6 Jennie A. Clauer and Mary Jane Herring died, leaving Jack B. Clauer as the only surviving roommate. Jack B. Clauer died with the remainder of his estate, which passed to the board of governors of Carleton College.

Rox asserts the fallback interest in the minerals transferred under this tailings clause and claims ownership through a series of transfers. 1 Markeeta A. Hopwood was initially named as defendant but transferred its shareholding in Rox by a waiver and was dismissed by that action. Rox Legal – Jouw Ondernemende Notariat – Jouw Ondernemende Notariaat, vertrouwd adres, verrassend anders In the past, financial institutions have measured their success solely by traditional return on investment (ROI) measures such as revenue, efficiency rate, membership and deposit growth. However, with digital disruption, innovative fintech, and lower customer engagement disrupting the banking industry, these measures no longer tell the whole story and no longer provide credit unions with actionable insights for long-term planning. The financial industry is changing too fast and its customers are changing even faster – so success is no longer an accurate prediction of future viability. ¶12 In this case, in the 1927 mining certificate, a determinable right with the possibility of reverting was granted. The constituents reserved the right to return the transferred minerals they still held at the time of signing the 1955 withdrawal documents.

The 1955 deeds of renunciation «reserved for them the entire portion of those minerals now held by the grantors,» which included the possibility of reversing the transferred minerals. (Emphasis added.) It is a clear and unambiguous intention to reserve the possibility of the reverter, since it was part of the oil, gas and other minerals that were in the possession of the concessionaires at the time. To find something else, the deed would have to be rewritten to delete the words «all of these minerals now belong to the concessionaires who are reserved». In all four corners of the 1955 waivers, the grantors made clear their intention to reserve all their interests in the minerals transferred from the allocation, which would include the possibility of cancellation.