Rucker v. DeLay, 289 P.3d 1166

In 1924, DeLay and wife reserved 60% of the landowner's one-eighth interest in oil, gas or minerals to be developed under any lease by the grantee or successors.
DeLay ratified an oil and gas lease in 1946 and successors did so in 1966; no other leases have been executed and no production has occurred on the land.
Current owners filed a quiet title action in 2008 challenging the reservation as a royalty interest void under the rule against perpetuities.
Lower courts held the reservation created a perpetual, nonparticipating royalty interest and voided it under the rule against perpetuities.
The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the reservation is a royalty or mineral interest and whether the royalty is void under the rule against perpetuities.
The court ultimately held the royalty interest is not void and reversed the district court’s quiet-title ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What interest did the deed create?	DeLay’s reservation created a mineral interest.	Reservation created a royalty interest in the grantors’ retained rights.	Reservation is a royalty interest.
Is the royalty interest void under the rule against perpetuities?	Royalty interests created in the grantor violate the rule against perpetuities.	Royalty interests reserved by grantors are not automatically void; vesting can occur.	Not void; royalty interest survives the rule against perpetuities.
What is the vesting event for a royalty interest in this context?	Perpetuities analysis should void the interest if vesting is too remote.	Production (vesting at production) is the vesting event for royalty interests.	Vesting at production is recognized; royalty not void.
Should Kansas caselaw requiring retroactive application of the rule against perpetuities be overruled for royalty interests reserved in the grantor?	Cosgrove and Lathrop should be overruled or distinguished.	The traditional approach should be maintained and extended to grantor-reserved royalties.	Declines to overrule entirely; applies governing principles to uphold the royalty interest.

Lathrop v. Eyestone, 170 Kan. 419 (1951) (royalty interests can be voided as violative of perpetuities unless vested earlier)
Cosgrove v. Young, 230 Kan. 705 (1982) (production may be vesting event for royalties; reaffirmed Lathrop approach)
Gore v. Beren, 254 Kan. 418 (1994) (uniform statutory rule against perpetuities governs post-1992 interests; common law otherwise)
Commercial National Bank v. Martin, 185 Kan. 116 (1959) (reversionary interests not subject to perpetuities; trust/possibility of reverter analysis)
Nelson v. Green, 225 Kan. 501 (1969) (distinguishes reversionary vs. remainder interests in perpetuities context)
Drach v. Ely, 237 Kan. 654 (1985) (modern trend tempering rigid rule against perpetuities in disposition of property)