An appraiser is valuing a 10-acre tract where the owner holds only surface rights; the mineral rights were severed and sold separately in 1952. No mining activity has occurred, and there are no current leases or operations. Which statement is correct regarding the appraiser’s analysis?

Option A: The severed mineral rights have no impact on value because they are dormant and non-producing

Dormancy is not the same as absence. A non-producing mineral estate still carries the right of access and the possibility of future leasing, and buyers, lenders, and title insurers respond to that uncertainty even when nothing is happening today. Whether the market discounts for it is a question to be answered with data, not assumed away.

Option B: The appraiser must assume fee simple ownership unless instructed otherwise, so the mineral severance is irrelevant

There is no default assumption of fee simple; the appraiser identifies the interest that actually exists. Valuing a surface estate as though the full bundle were intact would be a hypothetical condition contrary to known fact, which is permissible only when the intended use supports it and it is disclosed as such. A client instruction cannot convert an undisclosed misidentification into acceptable work.

Option D: The mineral rights automatically revert to the surface owner after 70 years under federal escheat law

There is no federal escheat law returning severed minerals to the surface owner after any period of years. Some states have enacted dormant mineral statutes under which unused mineral interests can lapse or be extinguished, but the triggering periods, notice requirements, and procedures differ from state to state and none of them operates automatically nationwide. Reversion turns on the terms of the conveyance and on the law of the state where the land lies.