Fort Worth lawyer John Hart placed an ad in Sunday's Star-Telegram seeking landowners who signed leases with Glencrest Resources, which says it has signed thousands of mineral rights leases in Tarrant County. [Click here to read the background.]Download glencrest.doc
Hart on Monday said none of those landowners has been paid a promised signing bonus and is preparing to go to court to get the leases rescinded. He said he has been contacted by a number of homeowners unhappy with Glencrest, organized by Fort Worth developer Leonard Briscoe Sr. The Star-Telegram has previously reported Briscoe's problems raising the money he needs to make good on the bonuses, which offered a minimum bonus of $750 per residential lot and a 25 percent royalty. Those terms were among the best reported when Glencrest launched its efforts about a year ago, but have been eclipsed recently as competition for remaining leases has escalated. Phone calls to Glencrest's office went unanswered Monday. A recording at Briscoe's personal phone said the company is establishing a call center and asks property owners to be patient.
-- Jim


We all know that the signing bonus is "part of the lease" even if it is not included in it.
Posted by: Stryker Hip Recall Lawyer | February 15, 2013 at 02:32 PM
Rosa, anything new happening? please keep us updated.
Posted by: B. Humphries | November 18, 2007 at 07:59 AM
Rosa, I wouldn't re-sign any thing with Glencrest and Brisco,.
they are just trying to lock you in again with a new lease.
I hope everyone sticks together and no one resigns with them.
Sounds like John Hart is not the attorney to use If he is trying
to get $$ from all your leases for helping. I would find a new attorney, or take your case,as a group, to the district attorney
of Fort Worth and have him file Fraud charges against Brisco.
If what you said about John Hart on the other blog is true, I would
file a complaint against him with the Bar association.
Posted by: B. Humphries | November 12, 2007 at 07:25 PM
FYI;; HERE IS SOMETHING YOU ALL MAY NOT KNOW: BRISCOE'S ATTORNEY 'DAVID DRUMM' SAID TO ME ON A 3 WAY CALL WITH BRISCOE, GLENCREST RESOURCES ''NEEDS'' US TO SIGN A NEW LEASE OR AN ADDEMDUM DUE TO OUR CURRENT LEASES ARE ''MISSING'' SOME IMPORTANT ELEMENTS, ONE BEING '' THE SIGN ON BONUS.! SO, IT SEEMS OUR LEASE ARE NO GOOD HOWEVER, WE ''STILL'' MUST GET A JUDGE TO THROUGH OUT THE LEASES, AS THEY ARE STILL PART OF OUR TITLE. IF WE SIT BACK AND HOLD ON, THIS MESS WILL BE OVER. THE QUESTION OF THE DAY IS; WHAT HAPPENS IF I '' REFUSE '' TO SIGN A NEW LEASE OR ADDENDUM.? SOUNDS LIKE A VOID TO ME...
Posted by: Rosa Yaites | November 12, 2007 at 02:07 AM
If Bedford allows drilling, where will they obtain a drill site over in Smithfield? Perhaps the DART Cotton Belt RR right-of-way?
Posted by: Fighter Ace | November 08, 2007 at 04:56 PM
Anti is Top Cat, who ever that is. His favorite word is "dude"
Posted by: B. Humphries | November 08, 2007 at 03:17 PM
Anti is not on earth anymore. He took off for Roswell.
Posted by: The missing link | November 08, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Anti may be John Stewart.
Posted by: Fighter Ace | November 08, 2007 at 12:00 PM
But if the Glencrest leases were filed of record they still present a cloud on the title, in my humble opinion, but perhaps the attorney can comment?
Posted by: Fighter Ace | November 08, 2007 at 11:58 AM
To B. Humphries:
The mention of the bonus in the cover letter is likely to be determined by a judge to be a term of the lease, even though it is not within the "four corners" of the lease document. This is not a foregone conculsion though, which is why you need a lawyer to demonstrate to a judge that the bonus was a part of the agreement even though it is not mentioned in the lease. It certainly helps that the signing bonus is reflected in writing somewhere, as opposed to just orally. You might also use the letter to demonstrate that the offer of a bonus was a fraudulent inducement to sign the lease.
In the common sense world, we all know that the signing bonus is "part of the lease" even if it is not included in it. Many judges and most juries will come to this conculsion and do "what is right." But technically, if the bonus is not mentioned in the lease there is a presumption that it is not part of the deal, and it is easier to just include it in the lease than to have to overcome the presumption later, in court.
Regarding people who don't get a copy of their lease: shame on them. Adults should know that you always keep a copy of a legal document you sign.
Finally, with respect to "Anti," we should ignore those who cannot conduct themselves civilly in a public forum. That said, I'd be interested to know what lawyer he or she is referring to, and how you were "scorched."
Posted by: JR | November 02, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Anti-I see you are still using dude in your vocabulary. It's not my fault that you are an incompetent landman for 4/7's. Did I twitch
the one nerve you have in your body? Didn't anyone ever teach you the 1st rule of business? Never to assume anything? You and your co-horts are and have been assuming I am a man. I find that quite amusing.
My comment is dated Oct.31,2007, The star-telegram quoted John Hart
Nov.1,2007. "Hart said he is seeking to recind or cancel those leases for lack of payment of the promised bonus." "Some people have been doing a TOP Lease, or a second lease if the first one is
voided", by default.
Now read my comment again, or I should say my opinion. The charges
and actions are the same. The only difference will be to have a
Judge sign off on the leases from Briscoe and Glencrest Resources
and it be recorded by the County Clerk.
Since Brisco is broke, and Glencrest is not stepping up and paying
out the bonus's I predict they will not show up in court, just like
they are and have been avoiding the press and telephone calls and
letters. The leases will be voided by default, and the people can lease to others.
Me thinks you are the moron.
Posted by: B. Humphries | November 02, 2007 at 05:56 PM
Humphries does not know his bottom from a hole in the ground. Talk about morons?
The lawyer scorched you dude. You lose AGAIN.
Posted by: Anti Humphries | November 01, 2007 at 03:40 PM
John Hart has a website--just search--john hart/attorney.
Posted by: B. Humphries | November 01, 2007 at 01:36 PM
JR- Is the cover letter considered part of the lease? Only the lease
is signed and notorized. How much weight does a cover letter carry
legally if it misrepresents facts in the lease?
So, are you saying that the bonus money is separate from the lease
as a legal document? I am not talking about the Glencrest case,
just asking in general. What if the bonus amount is only in the
cover letter and not in the lease?. What about all the people who
never got a copy of their signed leases?
Thanks
Posted by: B. Humphries | November 01, 2007 at 01:27 PM
To B. Humphries - Your comment is incorrect in several ways, unfortunately. First, the contracts do not explicitly say that Glencrest has to pay a signing bonus. Although Briscoe apparently orally promised that, the contract itself is silent to it, so on its face he is not in breach. You would need to establish (in court) that the promise to pay a bonus was either a term of the contract or an inducement to getting you to sign. Second, even if a party does breach a contract, a contract does not "poof" out of existence. The gas leases typically say that breaches do not automatically terminate the contract, and that the breached party needs to give notice and opportunity to cure the breach. Third, even if the contract is void, voidable, or terminated, because it relates to real estate and title, any subesquent lessor will want a recorded release or court order vacating the lease to clear title. Without clear title, it will be difficlut to sign with another company. For these and other reasons, homeowners who signed with Glencrest should take steps to get their leases vacated by a court. They can sign with someone else, but should still get their titles cleared.
Posted by: JR | October 31, 2007 at 09:52 PM
Not sure I understand why a lawsuit is necessary to release these
minerals contracts. It is a default contract. No bonus money paid, no contract. All these people, as a group, should feel free to
sign with someone else. A default is a default. The Glencrest
contracts were never completed, so they are void.
Posted by: B. Humphries | October 31, 2007 at 02:57 PM
I know something about Glencrest Resources.
Does the term grifter or flim flam artist ring a bell.
I am glad this attorney is filing suit against Glencrest.
Those poor people will never receive bonus checks.
Posted by: Fighter Ace | October 31, 2007 at 08:19 AM
Does anyone know anything about this attorney, his track record, etc?
Posted by: JR | October 29, 2007 at 08:38 PM