Opinion ID: 2612907
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Tryck's Interest

Text: It is undisputed that, in 1976, the Lower Poorman federal claims were technically lost by a federal conveyance to the state of the land on which the claims were located. In conveying the land to the state, the federal government neglected to except the Lower Poorman claims. Upon conveyance to the state, the unexcepted federal mining claims were extinguished, and the land became open for anyone to stake new mining claims under state law. Because the Lower Poorman claims were thus lost in 1976, Miscovich maintains that the superior court should not have awarded Tryck any interest in them. Miscovich further argues that when he staked and located the claims under state law in 1987, he acquired sole ownership rights in the Lower Poorman state claims. As a co-owner of the claims with Shropshire, however, Miscovich Brothers  and Miscovich, as a partner in Miscovich Brothers  were barred as a matter of law from using the loss of the federal claims to gain an advantage over Shropshire. It is well established that the co-owners of a claim owe a continuing fiduciary duty to each other regarding the claim, even if the original claim becomes void: Co-owners stand in a relation of mutual trust and confidence to each other. No co-owner will be permitted to act hostilely toward another in regard to their common property, and any distinct title acquired by one will inure to the benefit of all. The body of law applicable to co-owners generally applies with equal force to co-owners of a mining claim. Therefore, a relocation by one co-owner will inure to the benefit of all of the co-owners... . Even when an original location is void, the would-be co-locators are treated as fiduciaries so as to place on each an equitable duty not to act for the benefit of himself to the detriment of the others. 2 American Law of Mining, § 38.03[1] (emphasis added) (citations omitted). When the claims were lost in the federal conveyance to the state, Miscovich owed a continuing fiduciary duty to his brothers and to Shropshire regarding the Lower Poorman claims. Consequently, as the trial court correctly concluded, Miscovich's filing of state claims under the name Miscovich Mining in 1987 must be deemed to have been an act taken for the benefit of all co-owners. The state claims acquired by him inured to the co-owners of the federal claims, Miscovich Brothers and Shropshire. The trial court did not err in awarding a one-half share in the Lower Poorman claims to Tryck.