However, it does not follow that the regulatory grace period is of any consequence in this case, in light of the corporation's failure to take advantage of it. In other words, the payment for the 1996-97 assessment year would have been treated as if it had been made on August 31 and not on a later date. But in this case, the corporation did not pay the maintenance fee for 1996-97 either before or during the grace period. Defendant's argument attempts to transmute the grace period for making a late payment into a de facto extension of the previous assessment year. Its commencement was not deferred by the existence of a grace period for late payment.
Defendant misconceives the nature of a grace period.
It is, generally speaking, a device that permits the relation back to an earlier date of a legally significant act. As such, it has meaning only if it is used. Therefore, the trial court correctly concluded that the disputed mining rights were open to appropriation when plaintiff located his claims after noon on September 1, 1996. Because his claims were valid when filed, the trial court did not err in quieting title in plaintiff's favor. We use the term defendant only to refer to defendant John Jordan.