My county clerk is receiving documents from a title company which include copies of old O & G leases rather than retyping long legal descriptions. The problem is that the print is so small and blurred that these are barely legible as sent; by the time they are reproduced, they cannot be read at all.

She would like to refuse these, as she knows that they will not serve the intended purpose because they cannot be kept in a manner that they can be used.

See LGC 191.007, sections b3 & k

Lisa L. Peterson
Nolan County Attorney

How about a phone call to the title company's lawyer, pointing out that while the documents will be recorded (you're right, section K is a problem), the legibility problem may create some claims in the future against their company that they could easily avoid. Surely their lawyer can't appreciate the situation and still permit it to continue.

Perhaps if they hit the zoom button on their copiers they could avoid retyping but still end up with a product that is not going to leave their tender little bottoms hanging out there like this.....

Lisa,
191.007 is an example of one of my "favorite" pet peeves concerning legislatures, (especially ours). It's one of many, "you must", but, "so what if you don't", laws. It looks like it's limited to how much can be charged, as opposed to what can be recorded. Closest I can come is AG opinion LO-96-020, (1996 WL 118317), where Susan Garrison signed off on an opinion that a clerk may not refuse to record a deed with a legal referencing only an unapproved, unfiled, plat, even when the clerk knows that to be the case.
I agree with everything A.Diamond said, but I've noticed in the last ten or fifteen years title companies and lawyers don't seem to be nearly as concerned about "dotting and crossing" as we old timers used to be.

The attorney from the title company is a California type whose answer is that this isn't his company's problem. Apparently it would cost more to create a clearer attachment, therefore they aren't going to do it.

Best I can tell, the font on the attachment is about a 6; can't tell for sure if it was courtesy of a reduction operation on the original (which I suspect, looking at the rest of it) or just typed that way and poorly copied. At any rate, once we scan it, there will be no way to tell what piece of property is affected.

Lisa L. Peterson
Nolan County Attorney

It looks to me as though Section 191.007(h) allows the clerk to charge a double filing fee for each page because they do not meet the legibility requirement in (b)(3). Subsection (h) only says that the type size does not provide grounds for a double charge, not the legibility of the type.

If the document is not accompanied by the appropriate filing fee, the clerk could refuse it. As much as recording costs these days, the title company and its clients might notice the increased fees.

I did not think you could be a title company lawyer and be so laissez faire.

Maybe we can at least keep the damage limited: I brought this issue to the attention of a big firm energy lawyer I know and respect; I asked him to get the word out among his energy law colleagues across the state when they talk about problems in their area of practice. This is a good guy with lots of contacts. He immediately appreciated the future mess if this problem isn't fixed by the oil and gas and title companies at the front end, and the simple fix of getting the companies to take the time to file legible documents that can scan well.

I have one of the big wind farm firms in my community; since they talk on wind leases quite a bit, I'll run over and show them the problem.

It looks as though what is happening is that an Oil & gas lease is recorded. It shrinks when filmed. The landmen copy the filmed version - it blurs somewhat. Another copy is made to go with the wind lease - it may or may not be reduced further, but it certainly blurs. Then it is presented to the clerk for recording as an exhibit with the new lease - filming will reduce the blurred document again. Unfortunately, the reason for including it is for the legal description - which is wholly illegible!

Lisa L. Peterson
Nolan County Attorney

It is not as common as it used to be, but how about legal descriptions that still use a survey from 1907? It has been retyped many times, so that it is legible, but refers boundaries with landowners who have been dead since President's Wilson's first term, roads that were abandoned when the CCC built a paved highway back in the 1930s, and has a calls such as "and thence with the meanders of an un-named creek, approximately 800 varas, to a mesquite tree 8" in diameter marked thus ~." How close to 800 varas is "approximately"? Is that 800 varas as a crow flies, or 800 varas with the meanders? Couldn't the surveyor have found something more ephemeral than a mesquite tree to use a boundary marker? A spider's web perhaps?

At some future time, I expect a law requiring new land record filings to have GPS coordinates. But I don't think it will happen anytime soon, and the resurvey costs for the first generation of transfers after the change will be the speed bump that slows the adoption of this. It's inevitable, though, I think.