SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE

2020 MT 131: OP 19-0304, MARY ANN MURRAY and LIGE M. MURRAY,

Plaintiffs, Counter-Defendants, and Appellees, v. BEJ MINERALS, LLC, and

RTWF LLC, (hereinafter BEJ), Defendants, Counter-Claimants, and Appellants.

1

The Montana Supreme Court accepted a certified question from the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asking whether, under Montana law, dinosaur fossils 

constitute “minerals” that transfer with the mineral estate under a general mineral 

reservation deed. The Court answered the question no. 

BEJ were the original owners of a sizeable farm and ranch in Garfield County. BEJ

began leasing the land to the Murrays in 1983 for the Murrays to ranch. In 2005, the 

Murrays purchased the surface estate of the property and continued to ranch and farm the 

land. BEJ retained nearly all of the mineral estate. Beginning in 2005, the Murrays 

happened upon a “spike cluster” fossil on their property. Following their initial discovery, 

the Murrays found other valuable dinosaur fossils, including the fossilized remains of two 

dinosaurs locked in combat (the Dueling Dinosaurs); a large Triceratops foot; a large 

Triceratops skull; and the nearly complete fossilized remains of a Tyrannosaurus rex 

(Murray T. Rex). The dinosaur fossils are a huge scientific discovery, extremely rare, and 

highly valuable; for instance, the Dueling Dinosaurs and Murray T. Rex are each worth 

several million dollars. In 2013, BEJ, because it holds majority title to the mineral estate,

claimed it owned a portion of the fossils. The deed reserving the mineral estate to BEJ 

does not refer to dinosaur fossils or whether fossils are considered minerals owned by the 

mineral titleholder.

The Court, reaffirming its precedent, held that the “end goal when analyzing a 

general mineral reservation is to interpret the term ‘minerals’ according to its ‘ordinary and 

natural meaning,’ unless the parties manifest a different intention in the transacting 

document.” The Court held that unlike oil, gas, and hydrocarbons, fossils are not valuable 

as raw material to be processed into fuel or goods. The ordinary and natural meaning of 

“mineral” is more commonly thought of as a resource, often nonrenewable, including 

hard compounds, oil, or gas, which are mined as raw material for further processing, 

refinement, and eventual economic exploitation. The Court considered that the rarity and

value of dinosaur fossils is not related to their mineral composition or their usefulness for 

further refinement and economic exploitation. Rather, dinosaur fossils are valuable 

 

1 This synopsis was prepared for the convenience of the reader. It constitutes no part of the Opinion 

of the Court and may not be cited as precedent. 

05/20/2020

Case Number: OP 19-0304
because of their very existence as the remains of once-living organisms. Unlike a mineral 

which is mined, processed, and developed, fossils’ value depend on the completeness of 

the specimen, the species of dinosaur, and how well the fossil is preserved. The Court also 

considered the impact of removing dinosaur fossils on the surface estate. Fossils are 

closely related to the top of the land’s surface and often are easily exposed through natural 

events. Fossils are not mined, but rather are excavated. A large-scale excavation would 

interfere with the use and value of the surface estate, by rendering the surrounding surface 

useless for agricultural and grazing purposes. Farmers’ and ranchers’ investments in the 

surface of their property should be just as consequential and protected as other individuals’ 

investments in mineral estates. After considering all of these factors, the Court declined to 

oversimplify its established precedent by excluding relevant considerations and stretching

the term “mineral” so far outside of its ordinary and natural meaning as to include dinosaur 

fossils.

The dissenting opinion argued that the Court failed to follow its own clear, 

well-settled precedent under which a substance is a “mineral” for purposes of a mining 

reservation if: 1) minerals comprise the substance at issue; and 2) the substance is rare and 

exceptional in character or possesses a peculiar property giving it special value. The fossils 

in question plainly meet that test. Under the Court’s new analysis, the fossilized dinosaur 

bones, having 100% mineral composition, do not meet the first prong of the test. Because 

the Legislature has resolved the question of dinosaur fossils for future cases, the dissenters 

criticized the Opinion for crafting a new, convoluted, and opaque three-factor test that in 

the future will spawn more questions than it answers.