concurring in the result.
[¶ 22] I concur in the result. I do not believe that Gilbertson v. Charlson, 301 N.W.2d 144 (N.D.1981), takes the transfers between the siblings out of the application *748of the Duhig rule solely because in each deed the grantor was a co-tenant with the grantee. If Gilbertson applies to the deeds, it is because of the co-tenancy coupled with the notice of the status of the mineral interests provided to both grantor and grantee by instruments of record. The final decree of distribution of John C. Nichols’ estate was recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds in December 1951. The final decree of distribution of Margaret P. Nichols’ estate was recorded in June 1955. The record title demonstrates that no sibling had a “25%” interest to reserve and John Q. Nichols, the grantee, who was the administrator of both estates, was aware of this. See Sibert v. Kubas, 357 N.W.2d 495, 497-98 (N.D.1984).
[¶ 28] If the deeds did not reflect the parties’ true intentions, a timely action for reformation would have been the method to seek relief.
[¶ 24] Carol Ronning Kapsner
Daniel J. Crothers