Do I own the mineral rights to my property?

C.R.S. § 38-35-109(1)

A deed or reservation affecting Colorado real property is recorded in the office of the county clerk and recorder for the county where the land sits, and an unrecorded instrument loses to a later party who records first without notice of it.

Checked July 29, 2026. Subsection (1) read in full at colorado.public.law, current through Fall 2025, then cross-checked word for word against codes.findlaw.com, which marks its copy current as of January 01, 2025. The same subsection provides that "No such unrecorded instrument or document shall be valid against any person with any kind of rights in or to such real property who first records and those holding rights under such person, except between the parties thereto and against those having notice thereof prior to acquisition of such rights", and then characterises itself: "This is a race-notice recording statute." That sentence was deliberately checked against both mirrors before being treated as statutory text rather than an editor's gloss. It appears inline in subsection (1) in both copies, and two publishers with separate editorial pipelines would not insert the same characterisation at the same point. Instruments conveying real property to the state or a political subdivision are recorded under section 38-35-109.5 instead.

MCL 565.29

A Michigan conveyance of real estate that is not recorded is void as against a later purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration whose own conveyance is first duly recorded. That the first recorded conveyance is a quitclaim deed does not by itself affect that purchaser's good faith or put them on notice of an unrecorded conveyance.

Checked July 30, 2026. Read in the Revised Statutes of 1846 chapter on alienation by deed and the recording of conveyances, as amended in 1915. Worth noting for anyone comparing states: this is close to word for word what North Dakota's recording section says, including the quitclaim sentence, which is a reminder that several of these statutes descend from the same nineteenth century model rather than being independently invented. Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio and New Mexico each word the same rule differently again. No Michigan opinion classifying the state as notice or race-notice has been fetched, so no label is applied here.

Mont. Code Ann. § 70-21-304

Every Montana conveyance of real property other than a lease for a term not exceeding one year is void against a subsequent purchaser or encumbrancer of the same property, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, whose conveyance is first duly recorded. The section reaches encumbrancers expressly, including the assignee of a mortgage, lease or other conditional estate.

Checked July 30, 2026. Read at section 70-21-304. This is a seventh distinct wording across the states on this record and its ancestry is stated in the code itself, which is unusual and useful: the section's history line traces it to the Compiled Statutes of 1887 and then to California Civil Code section 1214, based on Field Civil Code section 530. So Montana's rule descends from the Field code line rather than from the 1846 Revised Statutes model that Michigan's and North Dakota's near-identical sections come from. Two features distinguish it from those two in substance and not just in wording: it names encumbrancers alongside purchasers and reaches the assignee of a mortgage, lease or other conditional estate, and it carves out a lease of a year or less, which is the same carve-out Oklahoma makes although Oklahoma also requires actual possession for it. No Montana opinion classifying the state as a notice or a race-notice jurisdiction has been fetched, so no label is applied here.

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 14-9-3

An unrecorded New Mexico instrument does not affect the title or rights of any purchaser, mortgagee in good faith or judgment lien creditor who had no knowledge of it. Possession alone under an unrecorded executory real estate contract neither imputes knowledge to a later purchaser nor creates a duty to inquire.

Checked July 30, 2026. Read from the same allowlisted mirror, current as of January 1, 2024. This is a sixth distinct wording across the states on this record: it turns on knowledge rather than on notice, value or first recording, and its second sentence then closes the gap that possession would otherwise open. That second sentence is the practically useful half for anyone reading a chain of title, because it means occupation of the ground under an unrecorded contract is not a red flag a purchaser is obliged to chase. No New Mexico opinion classifying the state as a notice or race-notice jurisdiction has been fetched, so no label is applied here.

N.D.C.C. § 47-19-41

An unrecorded North Dakota conveyance of real estate is void as against a subsequent purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration whose conveyance is first recorded, and as against an attachment or judgment against the owner of record entered before the conveyance is recorded. That the first recorded conveyance is a quitclaim deed does not by itself affect the later purchaser's good faith.

Checked July 30, 2026. Read at section 47-19-41 in the Century Code chapter PDF for chapter 47-19. This is a fifth distinct formulation across the states on this record and it combines both elements: good faith and value, and first recording. Colorado's statute calls itself a race-notice statute in terms; Texas turns on notice and valuable consideration; Oklahoma says simply that an unrecorded instrument is not valid against third persons; Ohio calls it fraudulent as against a later bona fide purchaser without knowledge. The section also states that it is itself notice to all who claim under unrecorded instruments that prior recording of later instruments may nullify their title, and that the record of an instrument is valid as the legal record whether or not the instrument was entitled to be recorded. No North Dakota opinion classifying the state has been fetched, so no label is applied.

R.C. 5301.25(A)

Ohio deeds and other instruments conveying or encumbering land must be recorded with the county recorder of the county where the premises are situated, and until they are recorded or filed for record they are fraudulent as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser who had no knowledge of them at the time of purchase.

Checked July 30, 2026. Read at section 5301.25, whose page states it is effective January 30, 2014 under House Bill 72 of the 130th General Assembly and was last updated December 27, 2023. This is a fourth distinct wording across the four states now on this record and the difference is not cosmetic. Colorado's statute calls itself a race-notice statute in terms. Texas voids an unrecorded conveyance as against a creditor or a purchaser for value without notice. Oklahoma simply says an unrecorded instrument is not valid against third persons. Ohio says it is fraudulent as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser without knowledge. No Ohio opinion classifying the state as notice or race-notice has been fetched, so no label is applied here.

16 O.S. § 15

In Oklahoma recording is not needed for a deed, mortgage or contract to be valid between the parties to it, but no deed, mortgage, contract, bond, lease or other instrument relating to real estate is valid against third persons unless it is acknowledged and recorded. The only exception in the section is a lease of a year or less accompanied by actual possession.

Checked July 30, 2026. Read in the Legislature's complete-title PDF for Title 16. The comparison across the three states on this record is the useful part and all three are worded differently. Colorado's statute contains the sentence "This is a race-notice recording statute." and protects the party who records first without notice. Texas voids an unrecorded conveyance as against a creditor or a subsequent purchaser for valuable consideration without notice. Oklahoma's section is blunter than either: it does not qualify the rule with notice or with value in the same sentence, it simply provides that an unrecorded instrument is not valid against third persons. What this record has not read is any Oklahoma opinion classifying the state as notice or race-notice, so no label is applied to it here.

Tex. Prop. Code § 13.001

An unrecorded conveyance of real property or of an interest in it is void as to a creditor or to a subsequent purchaser for valuable consideration without notice, but it still binds the parties to it, their heirs, and any later purchaser who does not pay value or who has notice of it.

Checked July 30, 2026. Section read in full on the official statutes site, current through the 89th 2nd Called Legislative Session, 2025. The contrast with Colorado is the useful part and it is a real difference rather than a wording variation: Colorado's statute protects the party who records first without notice, and describes itself as a race-notice statute; the Texas provision turns on notice and valuable consideration without a first-to-record requirement in the same sentence. Subsection (b) preserves the instrument against the parties, their heirs, and a purchaser who does not pay value or who has notice.

43 U.S.C. § 299

Every patent issued under the Stock-Raising Homestead Act reserved all coal and other minerals to the United States, so a surface owner can hold clean title to the land and own none of what is beneath it.

Checked July 29, 2026. Section read in full at uscode.house.gov, which stamps the text as containing those laws in effect on July 28, 2026. This is the reason a county records search can come back clean and still miss the reservation: it happened in the federal patent that first put the land into private hands, not in any later county instrument. The same subsection sets what a mineral developer must do before using the surface, which is recorded as a separate rule on this record.

C.R.S. § 10-11-123

Colorado requires a title insurance commitment to state when a mineral estate has been severed, and to warn that the mineral owner may be able to enter and use the surface without the surface owner's permission.

Checked July 25, 2026. Full text of the section read at colorado.public.law, current through Fall 2025. The section also requires the commitment to state "that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate".

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 70-2-33(E)

New Mexico's Oil and Gas Act defines the owner as the person who has the right to drill into and produce from a pool and to appropriate the production, which locates the mineral interest in the right to develop rather than in possession of the ground.

Checked July 30, 2026. Read at the definitions section of the Oil and Gas Act. Note the scope: this is the definition used in that Act, so it governs the conservation and pooling machinery rather than standing as a general statement of New Mexico property law. It is recorded because it is the clearest statutory statement found in this pass on what the mineral side of a split estate consists of, and because it pairs with the surface owner definition in the Surface Owners Protection Act to show the split in statute. The official text at nmonesource.com could not be extracted, so this is quoted from an allowlisted mirror that states it is current as of January 1, 2024; anything enacted after that date is not reflected here.

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 70-12-3(D)

For the Surface Owners Protection Act a surface owner is a person holding legal or equitable title, as shown in the records of the county clerk, to the surface of the property on which the operator has the legal right to conduct oil and gas operations. The definition assumes the two estates are in different hands.

Checked July 30, 2026. Read at the definitions section of the Surface Owners Protection Act. The definition is doing two things worth separating. It identifies the surface owner by the county record rather than by possession or occupation, which matters because the Act's notice duties run to that person. And its closing words assume the operator already has the legal right to conduct operations on that land, which is the split estate stated as a premise rather than argued for. The same section defines reclaim as substantially restoring the affected surface to the condition that existed before operations, or as otherwise agreed in writing. Quoted from an allowlisted mirror stating it is current as of January 1, 2024, because the official copy would not extract.

MCL 554.291(2)

A Michigan oil or gas interest owned by someone other than the surface owner, which has not been sold, leased, mortgaged or transferred by a recorded instrument for twenty years, and for which no drilling permit was issued and no production, withdrawal or underground gas storage use occurred, is deemed abandoned unless a claim of interest is recorded. It then vests in the surface owner as of the date of abandonment.

Checked July 30, 2026. Read on the Michigan Legislature's own site, which states the Compiled Laws are complete through Public Act 20 of 2026. This is the harshest dormancy mechanism on this record and the difference is procedural rather than substantive: Ohio's surface owner must serve notice by certified mail and the holder gets sixty days; North Dakota's must publish for three weeks and the holder gets sixty days; Michigan's statute contains no notice requirement and no procedure for the surface owner at all, and the vesting is dated to the abandonment rather than to any filing. Subsection (1) sets the twenty year clock and lists what stops it: a sale, lease, mortgage or transfer recorded with the register of deeds, a drilling permit issued by the state, actual production or withdrawal from the land or from lands the interest is leased into or pooled or unitized with, or use of the interest in underground gas storage. The section carries an editorial note that the act was held not unconstitutional as applied in Van Slooten v Larsen, 410 Mich 21; 299 NW2d 704 (1980); that opinion was not fetched and nothing is stated here about what it decided beyond the existence of the note.

N.D.C.C. § 38-18.1-02

A North Dakota mineral interest unused for the twenty years immediately preceding the first publication of the statutory notice is deemed abandoned unless a statement of claim has been recorded, and title to the abandoned interest vests in the owner of the surface estate on the date of abandonment.

Checked July 30, 2026. Read in the chapter PDF the North Dakota Legislative Branch publishes for chapter 38-18.1, which is titled Termination of Mineral Interest. Two provisions at the end of the chapter change how this rule should be read and are recorded here rather than as separate rules. Section 38-18.1-07 prohibits waiver of the chapter at any time before the twenty year period expires, so a mineral owner cannot contract out of it in advance. Section 38-18.1-08 states the chapter does not apply to a mineral interest owned by a governmental body or agency and that the chapter is both prospective and retrospective in its application, which means periods of non use completed before the chapter was enacted are not excluded. The surface owner who succeeds to an interest may record a statement of succession in interest.

R.C. 5301.56(B)

Ohio has an operative Dormant Mineral Act. A mineral interest held by anyone other than the surface owner is deemed abandoned and vests in the surface owner if the surface owner completes the statutory notice procedure and none of the statute's exceptions applies, which includes that none of six preserving events has occurred in the preceding twenty years.

Checked July 30, 2026. Read in full on the Ohio Legislative Service Commission's own Revised Code site, which states the section is effective January 30, 2014 under House Bill 72 of the 130th General Assembly. This is the first rule on this record answering the lapse question with a yes, and the reason Ohio was chosen as the fourth state. The vesting is not automatic on twenty years of silence: division (E) requires the surface owner to serve notice and record an affidavit of abandonment first, and division (H) gives the holder sixty days to stop it. Note the closing words of division (H)(2), that abandonment and vesting are effective only as to the property of the owner who filed the affidavit, so one surface owner's success does not extinguish the interest under a neighbour's land.