Case Title: O CONNOR v WILKE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 84-556

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 84-556 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF I\IONTANA 1985 CATHERINE O'CONNOR, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Alfred Fisher, Deceased; RALPH FISHER, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, JOHN F. WILKE, CARL L. CARAKER, and ROBERT A. WILKE, Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, In and for the County of Beaverhead, The Honorable Frank Davis, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: Schulz, Davis & Warren; John Warren, Dillon, Montana For Respondents: Burgess, Joyce & Whelan; Thomas Joyce, Butte, Montana Submitted on Briefs: June 7, 1985 Decided: August 29, 1985 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. I n t h e a c t i o n below, Catherine F i s h e r O1Connor i n d i v i d u a l l y , and a s Personal Representative o f t h e E s t a t e of Alfred F i s h e r , t o g e t h e r w i t h Ralph F i s h e r , David F i s h e r and P h y l l i s F i s h e r Crnkovich ( h e r e i n a f t e r F i s h e r s ) i n i t i a t e d t h i s a c t i o n seeking t o q u i e t t i t l e t o f o u r mining claims. John Wilke, Carl Caraker and Robert Wilke ( h e r e i n a f t e r Wilkes) c o n t e s t e d t h e a c t i o n claiming they w e r e t h e owners o f t h e f o u r claims. The D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Beaverhead County, s i t t i n g without a j u r y , t h e Honorable Frank M. Davis p r e s i d i n g found f o r t h e F i s h e r s and awarded them t i t l e and possession of t h e f o u r mining claims. From t h i s judgment t h e Wilkes appeal. The p a r t i e s d i s p u t e t h e ownership o f f o u r unpatented mining claims s i t u a t e d approximately t e n m i l e s s o u t h e a s t of Wisdom, Montana. The d i s p u t e d claims a r e i d e n t i c a l , although t h e p a r t i e s do n o t always r e f e r t o them by t h e same names. F i s h e r s a r e t h e successors i n i n t e r e s t o f t h e l a t e Alfred F i s h e r who was t h e undisputed owner o f f o u r unpatented mining claims located i n Beaverhead County, Montana, namely t h e "Trapper, " "Martin," "Pocahontas" and "Clara. " These claims a r e based on p r o p e r l y recorded C e r t i f i c a t e s of Location d a t i n g back t o t h e y e a r 1948. Since t h e recording o f t h e C e r t i f i c a t e s of Location, it i s undisputed by e i t h e r p a r t y t h a t t h e F i s h e r s , o r t h e i r predecessors i n i n t e r e s t , have t r a v e l l e d annua 1I.y t o t h e claims and performed assessment work valued a t $100 o r more. This assessment work c o n s i s t s o f c l e a r i n g roads, c l e a n i n g d r a i n a g e s , improving t u n n e l s and maintaining a cabin. It i s a l s o undisputed by e i t h e r p a r t y t h a t s i n c e t h e recording of t h e C e r t i f i c a t e s o f IJocation, t h e F i s h e r s , o r t h e i r predecessors i n i n t e r e s t , have f i l e d w i t h t h e Beaverhead County Clerk and Recorder t h e r e q u i r e d a f f i d a v i t s of performance o f annual assessment work. The only exception, t h a t is p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s a p p e a l , t o F i s h e r s ' r e g u l a r f i l i n g o f t h e s e a f f i d a v i t s i s f o r t h e y e a r ending August 31, 1977. During t h i s t i m e p e r i o d , F i s h e r s f a i l e d t o f i l e any a f f i d a v i t o f annual work f o r any o f t h e i r f o u r claims. Although, a s noted above, t h e annual work was performed by t h e F i s h e r s , o r t h e i r predecessors i n i n t e r e s t , during t h i s time p ~ r i o d . I n the f a l l o f 1977, t h e Wilkes, d i s c o v e r i n g t h e F i s h e r s ' f a i l u r e t o f i l e t h e required a f f i d a v i t s o f annual work f o r t h a t mining y e a r , r e l o c a t e d a claim on t h e "Clara" on November 27, 1977, renaming it t h e "Deana." The Wilkes adopted t h e F i s h e r s ' discovery site, r e e s t a b l i s h e d i t s c o r n e r s , and recorded t h e i r C e r t i f i c a t e s o f Location on November 28, 1977, i n t h e o f f i c e o f t h e Beaverhead County Clerk and Recorder. S i m i l a r l y , t h e Wilkes, motivated by t h e absence o f t h e o t h e r a f f i d a v i t s o f annual work, proceeded t o r e l o c a t e on December 31, 1977, t h e "Trapper," "Martin" and "Pocahontas" renaming t h e l a t t e r t h e "Mink. " The WiIkes p r o p e r l y recorded t h e i r C e r t i f i c a t e s o f Location w i t h t h e Beaverhead County Clerk end Recorder on February 7, 1978. Since t h e Wilkes r e l o c a t e d t h e f o u r mining claims i n t h e fa11 o f 1977, b o t h p a r t i e s have performed t h e annual assessment work and f i l e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a f f i d a v i t s . The F i s h e r s subsequently brought t h i s l a w s u i t seeking t o q u i e t t i t l e t o t h e f o u r mining claims. The i s s u e presented on appeal i s whether t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e F i s h e r s t o f i l e an a f f i d a v i t o f performance o f annual assessment work on t h e f o u r mining claims f o r t h e y e a r ending August 31, 1977, caused a f o r f e i t u r e o f t h e i r i n t e r e s t s , thereby making t h e claims open f o r r e l o c a t i o n by t h e Wilkes. The t h r u s t o f t h e Wilkes' argument t h a t t h e F i s h e r s f o r f e i t e d t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n t h e mining claims f o r f a i l u r e t o f i l e an a f f i d a v i t o f annual work c e n t e r s around t h e wording o f 5 82-2-103, MCA. This s t a t u t e provides i n p a r t p e r t i n e n t t o t h e c a s e a t b a r a s follows: A f f i d a v i t o f performance o f annual work: (1) The owner o f a lode o r p l a c e r claim who performs o r causes t o be performed t h e annual work o r makes t h e improvements r e q u i r e d by t h e laws o f t h e United S t a t e s . . . i n o r d e r t o p r e v e n t t h e f o r f e i t u r e o f t h e claim, must, w i t h i n 90 days a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e f e d e r a l annual assessment work p e r i o d , f i l e i n t h e o f f i c e o f t h e county c l e r k o f t h e county i n which such c l a i m o r claims is s i t u a t e d an a f f i d a v i t o f h i s own o r an a f f i d a v i t o f t h e person who performed such work o r made t h e improvements . . . ( 4 ) . . . Such a f f i d a v i t o r a c e r t i f i e d copy t h e r e o f i s prima f a c i e evidence o f t h e f a c t s t h e r e i n s t a t e d . The f a i l u r e t o f i l e such a f f i d a v i t s w i t h i n t h e period allowed t h e r e f o r s h a l l be prima f a c i e evidence t h a t such l a b o r h a s n o t been performed and t h a t t h e owner o f t h e claim o r claims h a s abandoned and surrendered same. A s t h e s t a t u t e i t s e l f i n d i c a t e s , § 82-2-103, MCA, was enacted t o supplement Federal s t a t u t o r y law. The Federal A c t it supplements i s t h e Mineral Lands and Mining A c t , 30 U.S.C.S 28. This a c t s p e c i f i e s how a mining claim is preserved: [Oln each claim located a f t e r t h e t e n t h o f May, 1872 and u n t i l a p a t e n t h a s been i s s u e d t h e r e f o r , n o t less t h a n $100 worth o f l a b o r s h a l l be performed o r improvements made d u r i n g each y e a r . . . and upon a f a i l u r e t o comply with t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s , the c l a i m o r mine upon which such f a i l u r e occurred s h a l l be open f o r r e l o c a t i o n i n t h e same manner a s i f no l o c a t i o n o f t h e same had e v e r been made, provided t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l l o c a t o r s , t h e i r h e i r s , a s s i g n s o r l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , have n o t resumed work upon t h e c l a i m a f t e r f a i l u r e and b e f o r e such l o c a t i o n . . . The p e r i o d w i t h i n which t h e work r e q u i r e d t o be done annually on a l l unpatented mineral claims l o c a t e d s i n c e May 1 0 , 1872, i n c l u d i n g such c l a i m s i n t h e T e r r i t o r y o f Alaska, s h a l l commence a t 12: 00 o ' c l o c k m e r i d i a n on t h e f i r s t day o f September succeeding t h e d a t e o f l o c a t i o n o f such c l a i m s . . . Thus, 30 U.S.C. § 28 imposed t h e requirement t h a t $100 worth o f l a b o r had t o b e performed o r improvements made on each c l a i m a n n u a l l y i n o r d e r t o p r e s e r v e t h e p o s s e s s o r y r i g h t t o t h e claim. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e F e d e r a l s t a t u t e s t a t e s t h a t i f t h e assessment work is n o t done i n a g i v e n y e a r , b u t i f t h e o r i g i n a l l o c a t o r resumes working on t h e c l a i m , t h e d e r e l i c t i o n o f t h e y e a r b e f o r e i s f o r g i v e n i f t h e work is resumed b e f o r e r e l o c a t i o n . Thus, t h e F e d e r a l s t a t u t e simply r e q u i r e s t h e work t o b e done a n n u a l l y . I f t h e work i s n o t done t h e c l a i m i s open f o r r e l o c a t i o n . I f t h e work i s done t h e c l a i m i s n o t open f o r r e l o c a t i o n . The Wilkes d o n o t d i s p u t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e F i s h e r s performed t h e r e q u i r e d assessment work on each o f t h e f o u r c l a i m s . The Wilkes concede t h a t a n n u a l l y , i n c l u d i n g t h e y e a r ending August 31, 1977, t h e F i s h e r s t r a v e l l e d t o t h e c l a i m s and performed and made improvements amounting t o a t l e a s t $100. I n s t e a d , t h e Wilkes a r g u e t h a t because t h e F i s h e r s f a i l e d t o f i l e an a f f i d a v i t o f annual work f o r t h e y e a r e n d i n g August 31, 1977, t h e F i s h e r s ' c l a i m s w e r e f o r f e i t e d under 5 82-2-103, M C A . The Wilkes a s s e r t t h a t under t h e wording o f 5 82-2-103, MCA, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e u n e q u i v o c a l l y mandated a f o r f e i t u r e o f F i s h e r s ' i n t e r e s t i n t h e i r c l a i m s f o r f a i l u r e t o f i l e t h e i r a f f i d a v i t o f a n n u a l work. I n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f 5 82-2-103, MCA, t h e Wilkes r e l y on t h e chanqe o f wording by t h e 1971 l e g i s l a t u r e of t h e n 5 50-704, R.C.M. (1947) , which s u b s t i t u t e d t h e p e r m i s s i v e word "may" f o r t h e mandatory word "must" w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e f i l i n g w i t h t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r o f t h e a f f i d a v i t o f annual work. The amendment h a s now been c o d i f i e d a s 82-2-103, MCA. Although t h i s Court posed t h e question o f t h e l e g a l e f f e c t o f t h i s amendment i n Sawyer-Adecor I n t e r n a t i o n a l , Inc. v. Anglin (1982), 198 Mont. 440, 646 P.2d 1194, we d e f e r r e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e new language because w e r u l e d t h a t S 82-2-103, MCA, d i d n o t come i n t o p l a y and was i r r e l e v a n t i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . The c a s e a t b a r , however, p r e s e n t s an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h i s Court t o i n t e r p r e t t h e new language o f 5 82-2-103, MCA. I n Sawyer-Adecor I n t e r n a t i o n a l w e developed t h e h i s t o r y of S 82-2-103, MCA, by e x p l o r i n g t h e language o f former 50-704, R.C.M. (1947) . W e s t a t e d t h a t former S 50-704 provided t h a t t h e owner o f a load o r p l a c e r mining claim who performed t h e annual assessment work "may" f i l e i n t h e o f f i c e of t h e county c l e r k and r e c o r d e r where t h e claim was s i t u a t e d an a f f i d a v i t showing t h e n a t u r e and c h a r a c t e r o f t h e work t h a t had been done on t h e mining claim. S e c t i o n 50-704 f u r t h e r provided t h a t "such a f f i d a v i t s . . . a r e prima f a c i e evidence o f t h e f a c t s t h e r e i n s t a t e d . " While t h e former S 50-704, R.C.M. was i n e f f e c t t h i s Court decided Coleman v. C u r t i s (1892) , 12 Mont. 301, 30 P. 266, which held t h a t complying with t h e s t a t u t e was merely a means o f p r e s e r v i n g prima f a c i e evidence t h a t t h e assessment work requirements had been f u l f i l l e d . L a t e r i n 1895 came Davidson v. Bordeau (1895), 15 Mont. 245, 38 P. 1075, i n which t h i s Court decided t h a t while t h e a f f i d a v i t o f annual work was prima f a c i e evidence t h a t t h e assessment work had been done, o r a l evidence could be given t o prove t h a t t h e work had been done without regard t o t h e a f f i d a v i t . Hence, it was t h e e s t a b l i s h e d law i n Montana f o r seventy-six y e a r s t h a t i f one performed t h e f e d e r a l l y r e q u i r e d assessment work t h a t t h e possessory r i g h t s t o t h e claim w e r e preserved. A s s t a t e d above, S. 50-704, R.C.M (1947), was subsequently amended by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n 1971, and is now c a r r i e d forward a s S 82-2-103, MCA. The e f f e c t o f t h e 1971 amendment, a s t h i s Court explained i n Sawyer-Adecor I n t e r n a t i o n a l , is t h a t whereas under S 50-704 t h e f i l i n g o f an annual a f f i d a v i t was permissive ("may") it is now under S 82-2-103, MCA, mandatory ("must"). I n a d d i t i o n , t h e l a s t sentence o f § 50-704 which provided t h a t "such a f f i d a v i t s . . . a r e prima f a c i e evidence o f t h e f a c t s t h e r e i n s t a t e d " was r e t a i n e d by t h e 1971 amendment verbatim. And furthermore, t h e 1971 amendment added t h i s p r o v i s i o n a s t h e l a s t sentence t o S 82-2-103, MCA: "The f a i l u r e t o f i l e such a f f i d a v i t s w i t h i n t h e period allowed t h e r e f o r s h a l l be prima f a c i e evidence t h a t such l a b o r h a s n o t been performed and t h a t t h e owner o f t h e claim has abandoned o r surrendered same. " I n reviewing t h e c a s e law and language o f former 5 50-704, R.C.M. (1947) , and t h e new language o f 5 82-2-103, MCA, it i s c l e a r t o t h i s Court t h a t it i s t h e assessment work and n o t t h e a f f i d a v i t o f annual work t h a t c o n t r o l s . W e a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t t h e omission of t h e a f f i d a v i t i s only prima f a c i e evidence t h a t t h e assessment work was n o t performed. W e do n o t a g r e e with t h e Wilkes' argument t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n adopting S 82-2-103, MCA, unequivocally mandated a f o r f e i t u r e o f F i s h e r s ' i n t e r e s t i n t h e i r mining claims f o r f a i l u r e t o f i l e t h e i r a f f i d a v i t o f annual work. The Wilkes ignore t h e l a s t sentence o f 9 82-2-103, MCA, which s a y s t h a t t h e omission t o f i l e an a f f i d a v i t i s "prima f a c i e evidence t h a t such l a b o r h a s n o t been performed." Since t h e work was admittedly performed, t h i s Court holds t h a t t h e F i s h e r s ' claims w e r e n o t s u b j e c t t o f o r f e i t u r e because o f t h e f a i l u r e t o f i l e one a f f i d a v i t i n a period o f over t h i r t y y e a r s . C e r t a i n l y t h e F i s h e r s ' claims w e r e never abandoned. Thus w e hold t h a t while § 82-2-103, MCA, made t h e f i l i n g o f an a f f i d a v i t o f annual work mandatory, t h e p e n a l t y f o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e mandate r e q u i r e s t h e owner t o assume the burden of proving that he did in fact locate the claim and that he did the assessment work within the federal mining year. In the case at bar the Fishers proved the work was done, the Wilkes conceded the work was done, and the trial court found the work was done. Hence, the presumption that the work was not done was contradicted and overcome by other evidence. Since the work was done the federal statutory requirement was met (30 U.S.C. § 28) and the plaintiffs are entitled to keep their possessory rights to the claims against all but the United States. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. We concur: