Mineral Rights And Wrongs Lead To Suspension

The Kansas Supreme Court accepted findings that an attorney’s initial negligence in a title transfer blossomed into dishonesty in imposing an 180-day suspension with automatic reinstatement.

Key Hearing Panel findings

It is clear from the evidence the respondent was aware that his office may have neglected issues in its research of the mineral interest. There were numerous red flags in the chain of title, including the unresolved issue of where the half reserved mineral interest of Enoch Nelson transferred after his death and why other individuals were paying taxes and executing oil and gas leases on the mineral interest in the property. Based on his expertise and experience in this area of the law, these facts should have, and as the respondent’s testimony during the deposition revealed, did alert the respondent to the fact that the mineral title opinion may not be accurate.

The evidence shows that the respondent was aware of these facts and questioned his own legal conclusion that the seller could transfer 100% of the mineral interest to the buyer.

The respondent knowingly misrepresented the facts when he failed to advise the buyer of the concerns he saw that could lead to the conclusion that not all of the mineral interest was transferred to the buyer during the 2015 real estate sale.

Further, by the time the respondent testified during his deposition, he knew there was some problem with the title but continued to insist that his mineral title opinion was 100% accurate. At the time of the formal hearing, this inconsistency was never fully explained by the respondent.

Sanction

The only issue left to be determined is the appropriate discipline. During oral arguments, both the Disciplinary Administrator’s office and respondent Eland agreed the panel’s recommendation of a 180-day suspension was appropriate discipline and that no reinstatement hearing under Supreme Court Rule 232 (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 293) was necessary. See Supreme Court Rule 232(d) (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 294). This court is not bound by the recommendations made by the Disciplinary Administrator or the hearing panel, however. In re Long, 315 Kan. 842, 853, 511 P.3d 952 (2022). That said, after considering the evidence presented, the recommendations of the hearing panel, and the recommendations of the parties, we determine the recommended discipline is appropriate. We also agree that respondent Eland need not undergo a reinstatement hearing.

(Mike Frisch)