User:Marissacarvelli/Split estate

' **********My contributions are bolded below. The text from the original article is unbolded.************ There are no direct quotes used in this article. The bold is solely used to show my additions to the content that was already there. '

Lead
In the United States, a split estate is an estate where the property rights to the surface and the underground are split between two parties. '''The party who owns the rights to the subsurface minerals owns the mineral estate and is said to be the owner of the dominant estate.  The dominant estate has a separate right to use the surface in a manner reasonable for the successful extraction and development of the minerals below.  The surface is owned by another party. '''

In American jurisprudence, property owners are said to hold a bundle of property rights often referred to as a bundle of sticks. These rights include the use, possession, exclusion of others, management, conveyance to others, enjoyment, etc. of the property. The most important right in this bundle is the right to exclude others from entering onto your property. Notably, the status of the exclusion right is complicated in a split estate since the owner of the mineral rights must enter the surface in order to access the minerals that they own. Because the mineral estate owner's right to possess and make use of their minerals supersedes the surface estate's right to exclude them from the surface, the mineral estate is called the dominant estate.

Split Estates Generally
At the dawn of the 20th century, Congress passed the Stock-Raising Homestead Act (1916) in which "homesteaders" obtained the title to the surface and the federal government retained the ownership of the minerals. States then passed individual similar Homestead Acts such as the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971).

'''At the federal level in the United States, split estates most often occur in instances where the mineral estate and any subsurface rights are part of the public domain. As such, the United States is the holder of those rights. Importantly, they do not own the rights to the surface. The rights to the surface may be owned by either people unaffiliated with the government or a separate governmental entity. The exercise of these rights is often connected to mining practices.'''

A split estate is similar to the Broad Form Deed, a type of legal document created in the United States in the early 1900s. These documents were used to sever property into mineral and surface rights, just like a split estate today.

How Split Estates are Formed
In the 49 United States practicing British common law (the 50th, Louisiana, derived its law from French and Napoleonic Code), a split estate is created when the original fee simple owner sells or otherwise loses ownership of the subsurface, often called the mineral estate. Executor rights transfer in whole, unless otherwise reserved, and administration of the estate carries the same rights, liabilities, and privileges the surface estate does.[which?]

In the Louisiana, severability of estate is legal and common, however a particular law practice similar to easements in English law allows the reversion of the mineral estate to the current surface owner if the mineral estate is not actively engaged in productive activity. This is similar to squatter's rights in other states; however other states do not allow this for the mineral property. The term squatter's rights describes a way in which a person or people who do not possess legal title of a piece of property can acquire it without permission from the original owner. This is achieved through the continuous occupation or presence on that specific piece of land.

The enactment of the Stock-Raising Homestead Act (1916) (the SRHA) lead to massive amounts of previously government-owned lands becoming split estates. This is because the government through these Homestead Acts was giving public lands to people who were in turn going to utilize the land for ranching purposes. However, in these situations, the government often wanted to retain the rights to the valuable minerals that were below the surface. In Wyoming, almost all of the current split estates can trace their origin to the passage of the SRHA.

Alternatively, another portion of split estates in the United States were formed through Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 or the Weeks Act of 1911. Contrary to the Homestead Acts, in the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 and the weeks Act of 1911, the federal government obtained the surface rights and the private owners retained the subsurface rights.

Who owns the right to exploit the underground is important in case it contains minerals, oil, or natural gas. It is currently the object of controversies because some landowners are concerned about the nuisance and environmental impact.

Notable Cases and Conflicts
With a significant portion of the state's land denoted as split estates, Wyoming has been uniquely challenged by the topic. Eleven million acres of mineral rights in Wyoming are owned by the federal government. In total, Wyoming has just under twelve million acres of land denoted as split estates. '''North Dakota is similarly challenged with thirty percent of it's total land denoted as split estate. '''

 Notable Cases: 

' Amoco Prod. Co. v. S. Ute Indian Tribe, 526 U.S. 865 (1999).''  In this case, the respondent native tribe was conveyed the land and later the coal beneath in by the Coal Lands Acts of 1909. This dispute centered around a claim to the gas found within the coal formation. The Court held that the gas was not included with the coal and therefore was not owned by the respondents.'''

' Denbury Onshore, Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Christensen, 722 F. App'x 768 (10th Cir. 2018). This case arose out of a conflict between the surface owner and an oil and gas operator. The court held that the operator in general did have a claim to reasonable use of the surface in order to access the resources below; however, their broad request to access all of the surface was neither reasonable nor necessary.'

 North Dakota v. United States DOI, No. 1:21-cv-00148, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115046 (D.N.D. Mar. 27, 2023). In this case, the court enjoined federal defendants from continuing to disregard their responsibilities as outlined in the Mineral Leasing Act. '''The case stems from a January 2021 executive order that paused some new resource leases. North Dakota challenged these pauses on the basis that it violated the disclosure requirement in the mineral estate leasing statutes.'''

Split Estates by the State
'''States omitted from the chart below do not have statutes that specifically regulate split estates or mineral estates at this time. Those states are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia.'''

Impact of Split Estates on Indigenous Communities
Indigenous communities in the United States possess the ownership rights over large amounts of oil and gas, coal, uranium, and other resources. This puts these communities in the position of lessor to extraction companies should they choose. However, due to complicated federal allotment policies enacted in the late 1800s and early 1900s, there are many permutations of ownership, unity, and division of estates between indigenous communities, the federal government, and private individuals. In these cases, either or both the mineral and surface estate may be owned by the communities or individuals thereof, private parties, or the federal government and may be owned in trust or in fee. Indigenous ownership of mineral estates was recognized and bolstered in the 1938 Supreme Court case United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians. This case held that, unless otherwise denoted, the minerals beneath the lands allotted to the indigenous communities were also allotted to them. These relationships remain complicated today.