Opinion ID: 1198963
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Effect of failure to comply with AS 38.05.130

Text: Alaska Statute 38.05.130 contains no explicit remedy for its violation, and says nothing about invalidating a claim staked in violation of the statute. [23] Nor does the regulation specify or imply a remedy of invalidation or ejectment. 11 AAC 96.140(10). Any judicially implied remedy must be consistent with the purpose of the statute. We conclude that it was error to grant the remedy ordered by the superior court, ejectment. [24] As seen above, section .130 protects landowners financially, but does not allow them to completely close their lands to mineral exploration. Consequently, it is enough that landowners be placed in the same position they would have enjoyed had the statute been observed, and an agreement reached or a bond posted. Indemnification, not ejectment, is the appropriate remedy for failing to reach agreement or post a bond. This result sustains the locator's right of entry, and preserves both the locator's incentive to satisfy the requirements of section .130 and the landowner's incentive to act reasonably during negotiations with the locator. [25] The landowners argue that this court specifically noted Hayes's violation of the statute and regulation in A.J. Associates, citing to 846 P.2d at 134. The only passage on the cited page that has any potential bearing cannot fairly be read to say that we held that Hayes violated the statute and regulation. That sentence reads: The court also pointed to Hayes' violation of AS 38.05.130 and 11 AAC 96.140(10) which require posting of a bond to protect the owner of the surface estate prior to mining-related activity. The quoted sentence simply restated the conclusion of the superior court (the court), and did not purport to be our holding on that question. Indeed, it was not necessary for us to decide there whether Hayes violated the statute or regulation. The landowners also argue that the State, in its amicus brief, has agreed that AS 38.05.130 and 11 AAC 96.140(10) require `a damage agreement ... or surety bond prior to entry onto the land in order to stake a valid location.' We do not read the State's amicus brief so broadly. The full sentence that the landowners quote in part reads as follows: Since AS 38.05.130 and 11 AAC 96.140(10) [require] a damage agreement or surety bond prior to mineral exploratory activity, it is consistent to therefore interpret AS 38.05.130 and 11 AAC 96.140(10) as requiring a damage agreement or surety bond prior to entry onto the land in order to stake a valid location. (Emphasis added.) The State's amicus brief gives examples of mineral exploratory activities that do not involve entry or cause no additional disturbance to the land. In the preceding examples the mineral exploratory activities are not subject to AS 38.05.130. The State further observes that the fact that exploration came before staking, does not ipso facto mean that staking requires a bond. In context, the State seems to recognize that normally some mineral exploratory activity precedes a valid location, and that entry for the purpose of staking requires a damage agreement or surety bond because any exploratory activity preceding the staking will normally require an agreement or bond. The State does not seem to assert that staking, without more, falls within section .130. The landowners also argue that there is no personal implicit right to prospect or to mine that trumps the State's authority to manage these resources as it sees fit. That assertion is correct, but the State's policy in managing these resources is expressed in AS 38.05.185, .195, .250, .300, and article VIII, sections 11 and 12 of the Alaska Constitution. Hayes did not violate this policy when he entered to stake these two claims in 1982.