352 P.3d 616
Mont.2015Background
- Runkle and TAGS located adjacent/overlapping mining claims in Broadwater County; Runkle owned a patented lode claim ("Black Friday") and later located an overlapping placer claim; TAGS located an unpatented lode claim adjacent to Black Friday.
- A pile of historic mine waste (containing uneconomical gold when dumped but became viable by 2011) lay across the common border of TAGS’s lode and the Black Friday patented claim and entirely within Runkle’s later-claimed placer.
- In 2011 Runkle entered TAGS’s claim area, removed and sold all of the waste; he did not dispute entering TAGS’s claim to remove the material.
- TAGS sued for trespass and conversion (May 2012); parties stipulated the case could be decided on cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to Runkle, finding TAGS’s lode claim invalid (no lode discovery) and that, even if valid, a lode claim gave TAGS no interest in placer/waste material; TAGS appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (TAGS) | Defendant's Argument (Runkle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of TAGS’s lode claim (discovery) | TAGS had a valid lode claim supported by discovery; District Court improperly raised and decided invalidity sua sponte | TAGS implicitly admitted no lode discovery by treating surface materials as within its lode boundary | Reversed: trial court erred to decide invalidity on summary judgment without notice; existence of discovery was not litigated and remains a factual question |
| Whether TAGS’s claim gave it rights to exclude/remove waste (trespass standing) | A valid lode claim confers exclusive possession rights within claim boundaries and supports trespass even if surface waste is placer material | TAGS’s lode claim (if any) does not reach placer/waste materials, so TAGS lacks property interest to sue | Reversed: court wrongly held as a matter of law that TAGS had no sufficient interest; right to exclude is a factual inquiry subject to US rights/permits under federal law |
| Whether the removed waste belonged to Runkle as successor to Black Friday or became personalty before TAGS’s claim | TAGS preserved challenges to origin, abandonment, and competing rights; these are disputed facts | Runkle argues he owned the waste by succession/ownership before TAGS located its claim | Remanded: ownership, abandonment, origin, and timing are fact questions; court should address them after factual development |
| Whether removal was authorized by US surface/mining rights (license/permit) | TAGS asserted exclusion rights subject only to superior US rights; Runkle must show any US permit/license defense | Runkle implies potential US permit/license or superior right to use surface for mineral disposition | Not resolved: applicability of US permit/license and whether removal interfered with mining operations are factual issues for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Silver Jet Mines v. Schwark, 210 Mont. 81 (Mont. 1984) (burden on original locator to prove sufficient mineral discovery when questioned)
- Boscarino v. Gibson, 207 Mont. 112 (Mont. 1983) (validity of mining claim and exclusive possession principles)
- Cole v. Ralph, 252 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1920) (distinguishing lode and placer discoveries as bases for claims)
- Clipper Mining Co. v. Eli Mining & Land Co., 194 U.S. 220 (U.S. 1904) (presence of one deposit type inside claim boundaries does not preclude a valid claim supported by another deposit)
- Reynolds v. Iron Silver Mining Co., 116 U.S. 687 (U.S. 1886) (principles on claim support by proper discovery)
- United States v. Curtis-Nevada Mines, Inc., 611 F.2d 1277 (9th Cir. 1980) (federal rights and surface-use limitations affecting mining claim possessory rights)
- Our Lady of the Rockies, Inc. v. Peterson, 342 Mont. 393 (Mont. 2008) (a valid mining claim is property conferring exclusive possession rights)
- Foreman v. Beaverhead County, 117 Mont. 557 (Mont. 1945) (treatment of mine tailings as placer deposits)
- Conway v. Fabian, 108 Mont. 287 (Mont. 1939) (legal distinctions between placer and lode discoveries and their effects on ownership)
- Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1881) (early precedents on possessory rights in mining claims)