Opinion ID: 1404721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Mining Activity on the Disputed Tract

Text: Although leasing of the disputed tract by the Hoskins Heirs for mining purposes began in 1976, Bledsoe, for many years, did not conduct any actual mining on it. Evidence from the record, however, would support a finding that during this time, the Hoskins Heirs acted as owners of the property and Bledsoe undertook numerous acts pursuant to its lease with them. For example, the Hoskins Heirs paid the property taxes and the un-mined mineral taxes on the disputed tract, while Bledsoe paid the Hoskins Heirs advance, or minimum, royalties for the property under lease. Ben Boggs, in his 2001 deposition, notes the Boggs Heirs began paying property taxes on the property, four or five years ago, something like that . . . As royalties were paid to, the Boggs Heirs by Bledsoe, beginning around 1997, this could coincide with the payment of taxes by the Boggs Heirs. In addition to paying advance, or minimum, royalties under its' lease with the Hoskins Heirs, Bledsoe also entered onto the property and surveyed the land, built haulage roads on the property, and obtained permits to mine the property, while adjacent land owners sought and received reciprocal consent to traverse the property from Bledsoe under its' lease. All of these acts were undertaken by Bledsoe pursuant to its lease with the Hoskins Heirs and all were prior to the Boggs Heirs' lease. In addition, certain coal on the disputed tract was mined by Stansbury & Company, pursuant to a conveyance to them by the Hoskins Heirs at the request of Bledsoe. This was on February 4, 1983, when the number nine seam of coal on a part of the disputed tract was sold by the Hoskins Heirs, at the request of Bledsoe, to Stansbury & Company, Inc. This portion was originally prospected in 1976 and between 1983 and 1994, it was mined. The mining would have been obvious to anyone in the area who cared to look, as it was contour surface mining. Moreover, the mining permit was issued in accordance with law and only after public notice. No objection to the issuance of this permit, or this mining, was ever made by the Boggs Heirs from the record before us. According to Bledsoe, it conducted no mining on the disputed tract until June of 1997. However, when mining began, the royalties from the mining were paid initially to the Boggs Heirs. In December 1997, after complaint by the Hoskins Heirs, Bledsoe began withholding the royalties. It commenced the interpleader litigation in the Leslie Circuit Court on September 4, 1998. Thereafter, on March 21, 2001, the Boggs Heirs filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that Silas Boggs took title to the disputed tract via the October 3, 1881 deed and that the property had passed to them through mense descent. The Hoskins Heirs responded and also moved the Leslie Circuit Court for summary judgment on their, counterclaim against Bledsoe, as well as on their crossclaim against the Boggs Heirs. Then, by order dated November 13, 2001, the court set, aside the scheduled trial date of November 14, 2001, and scheduled the motions for judgment conference on December 3, 2001. On June 5, 2002, finding that [t]here is no genuine issue of material fact as to the execution, delivery or recordation of the 1881 deed to Silas Boggs. and that [t]he construction of a deed is a matter of law with the intention of the parties to be gathered from the four corners of the instrument . . . [,] unless a ambiguity exists in the deed which will not permit its construction without looking at the outside evidence . . . the Court entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment, finding the October 3, 1881 deed to Silas Boggs to be unambiguous and therefore entered judgment on behalf of Appellees, the Boggs Heirs, dismissing all claims of Hoskins Heirs against both the Boggs Heirs and Bledsoe. [9]