Legal Opinion

Nickelson v. Bell

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided September 16, 2016No. 114507PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Arnold-Burger, J.:

Generally, any interest in mineral rights will lapse and revert to the surface owner of the property if it remains unused for 20 years. K.S.A. 551602. The owner of an unused mineral interest may prevent tire lapse by filing a claim as set out in K.S.A. 55-1604. When surface landowners Ronald and Betty Nick-elson (Nickelsons) sought to quiet title to unused mineral rights on their land, several people filed claims under K.S.A. 55-1604. Because some of these people maintained ownership through intestate succession, without any judicial determination regarding their acquisition…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Neighbor v. Westar Energy, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 2015
  2. Cady v. SchrollSupreme Court of Kansas · 2014
  3. Kumberg v. KumbergSupreme Court of Kansas · 1983
  4. Peterson v. PetersonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1952
  5. Jardon v. PriceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1947

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API