O Connor v. Wilke

Opinion

No. 84-556 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF I\IONTANA 1985

CATHERINE O'CONNOR, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Alfred Fisher, Deceased; RALPH FISHER, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

JOHN F. WILKE, CARL L. CARAKER, and ROBERT A. WILKE, Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, In and for the County of Beaverhead, The Honorable Frank Davis, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellants:

Schulz, Davis & Warren; John Warren, Dillon, Montana

For Respondents: Burgess, Joyce & Whelan; Thomas Joyce, Butte, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: June 7, 1985 Decided: August 29, 1985

Clerk Mr.J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court.

In the action below, Catherine Fisher O1Connor

i n d i v i d u a l l y , and a s P e r s o n a l R e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e E s t a t e o f

Alfred Fisher, t o g e t h e r w i t h Ralph F i s h e r , David F i s h e r and

P h y l l i s F i s h e r Crnkovich ( h e r e i n a f t e r F i s h e r s ) i n i t i a t e d t h i s

a c t i o n seeking t o q u i e t t i t l e t o f o u r mining claims. John

Wilke, Carl Caraker and Robert Wilke ( h e r e i n a f t e r Wilkes)

contested the action c l a i m i n g t h e y w e r e t h e owners o f the

four claims. The District Court of the Fifth Judicial

District, Beaverhead County, sitting without a jury, the

Honorable F r a n k M. D a v i s p r e s i d i n g found f o r t h e F i s h e r s and

awarded them t i t l e and p o s s e s s i o n of t h e f o u r m i n i n g c l a i m s .

From t h i s judgment t h e W i l k e s a p p e a l .

The p a r t i e s d i s p u t e t h e o w n e r s h i p o f four unpatented

mining c l a i m s s i t u a t e d approximately t e n m i l e s s o u t h e a s t of

Wisdom, Montana. The d i s p u t e d c l a i m s a r e i d e n t i c a l , a l t h o u g h

t h e p a r t i e s d o n o t a l w a y s r e f e r t o them by t h e same names.

Fishers are the successors in interest of the late

A l f r e d F i s h e r who was t h e u n d i s p u t e d owner o f f o u r u n p a t e n t e d

mining c l a i m s l o c a t e d i n Beaverhead County, Montana, namely

the "Trapper, " "Martin," "Pocahontas" and "Clara. " These

claims are based on properly recorded Certificates of

Location d a t i n g back t o t h e y e a r 1948.

S i n c e t h e r e c o r d i n g o f t h e C e r t i f i c a t e s o f L o c a t i o n , it

is undisputed by either party that the Fishers, or their

predecessors in interest, have travel led annua 1I.y to the

c l a i m s and p e r f o r m e d a s s e s s m e n t work v a l u e d a t $100 o r more.

This assessment work consists of clearing roads, cleaning

d r a i n a g e s , i m p r o v i n g t u n n e l s and m a i n t a i n i n g a c a b i n .

I t i s a l s o u n d i s p u t e d by e i t h e r p a r t y t h a t since the

r e c o r d i n g of t h e C e r t i f i c a t e s o f IJocation, t h e F i s h e r s , or

their predecessors in interest, have filed with the B e a v e r h e a d County C l e r k and R e c o r d e r t h e r e q u i r e d a f f i d a v i t s

of performance of annual assessment work. The only

exception, that is pertinent to this appeal, to Fishers'

regular filing of these affidavits i s f o r t h e year ending

August 3 1 , 1977. During t h i s t i m e p e r i o d , F i s h e r s f a i l e d t o

file any affidavit of annual work for any of their four

claims. Although, as noted above, the annual work was

performed by t h e F i s h e r s , o r t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t ,

during t h i s time p ~ r i o d .

In the fall of 1977, the Wilkes, discovering the

Fishers' failure to f i l e t h e required affidavits of annual

work f o r t h a t m i n i n g y e a r , r e l o c a t e d a c l a i m on t h e " C l a r a "

on November 27, 1977, r e n a m i n g i t t h e "Deana." The W i l k e s

adopted the Fishers' discovery site, reestablished its

corners, and recorded their Certificates of Location on

November 28, 1977, in t h e o f f i c e of t h e Beaverhead County

C l e r k and R e c o r d e r . S i m i l a r l y , t h e Wilkes, m o t i v a t e d by t h e

a b s e n c e o f t h e o t h e r a f f i d a v i t s o f a n n u a l work, p r o c e e d e d t o

r e l o c a t e on December 31, 1977, the "Trapper," "Martin" and

"Pocahontas" renaming the latter the "Mink. " The WiIkes

properly recorded their Certificates of Location with the

Beaverhead County C l e r k end R e c o r d e r on February 7, 1978.

S i n c e t h e Wilkes relocated the f o u r mining claims i n

the fa11 of 1977, both parties have performed the annual

a s s e s s m e n t work and filed the appropriate affidavits. The

Fishers subsequently brought this lawsuit seeking t o q u i e t

title to the four mining claims. The issue presented on

appeal is whether the failure of the Fishers to file an

affidavit of performance of annual a s s e s s m e n t work on the

four mining claims for the year ending August 31, 1977,

caused a forfeiture of their interests, t h e r e b y making t h e

c l a i m s open f o r r e l o c a t i o n by t h e W i l k e s . The thrust of t h e Wilkes' argument that the Fishers

f o r f e i t e d t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n t h e mining c l a i m s f o r f a i l u r e t o

f i l e a n a f f i d a v i t o f a n n u a l work c e n t e r s a r o u n d t h e w o r d i n g

o f 5 82-2-103, MCA. This s t a t u t e provides i n p a r t pertinent

t o t h e case a t b a r a s follows:

A f f i d a v i t o f p e r f o r m a n c e o f a n n u a l work: (1) The owner o f a l o d e o r p l a c e r c l a i m who p e r f o r m s o r c a u s e s t o b e p e r f o r m e d t h e a n n u a l work o r makes t h e improvements r e q u i r e d by t h e laws o f t h e United States ... in order t o prevent the f o r f e i t u r e o f t h e c l a i m , m u s t , w i t h i n 90 days a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e f e d e r a l a n n u a l a s s e s s m e n t work p e r i o d , f i l e i n t h e o f f i c e o f t h e county c l e r k o f t h e c o u n t y i n which such c l a i m o r c l a i m s i s s i t u a t e d an a f f i d a v i t o f h i s own o r a n a f f i d a v i t o f t h e p e r s o n who p e r f o r m e d s u c h work o r made t h e improvements ...

(4) ... Such a f f i d a v i t o r a c e r t i f i e d copy t h e r e o f i s prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e o f the facts therein stated. The f a i l u r e t o f i l e such a f f i d a v i t s w i t h i n t h e period a l l o w e d t h e r e f o r s h a l l b e prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t s u c h l a b o r h a s n o t been p e r f o r m e d and t h a t t h e owner o f t h e c l a i m o r c l a i m s h a s abandoned and s u r r e n d e r e d same.

As the statute itself indicates, § 82-2-103, MCA, was

e n a c t e d t o s u p p l e m e n t F e d e r a l s t a t u t o r y law. The F e d e r a l A c t

it supplements is the Mineral Lands and Mining Act, 30

U.S.C.S 28. This act specifies how a mining claim is

preserved:

[Oln e a c h c l a i m l o c a t e d a f t e r t h e t e n t h o f May, 1 8 7 2 and u n t i l a p a t e n t h a s been i s s u e d t h e r e f o r , n o t less t h a n $100 w o r t h of labor shall be performed or improvements made d u r i n g e a c h y e a r ... and upon a f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s , t h e c l a i m o r mine upon which s u c h f a i l u r e o c c u r r e d s h a l l b e open f o r r e l o c a t i o n i n t h e same manner a s i f no l o c a t i o n o f t h e same had e v e r b e e n made, provided that the original locators, their heirs, assigns or legal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , h a v e n o t resumed work upon t h e c l a i m a f t e r f a i l u r e and b e f o r e such location ... The period within which t h e work r e q u i r e d t o b e done a n n u a l l y on a l l u n p a t e n t e d m i n e r a l c l a i m s l o c a t e d s i n c e May 1 0 , 1 8 7 2 , i n c l u d i n g such claims i n t h e T e r r i t o r y o f Alaska, s h a l l commence a t 1 2 : 00 o ' c l o c k m e r i d i a n on t h e f i r s t d a y o f S e p t e m b e r s u c c e e d i n g the date of location of such claims ... Thus, 30 U.S.C. § 28 i m p o s e d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t $100

worth of l a b o r had t o b e p e r f o r m e d o r i m p r o v e m e n t s made on

each claim annually i n order t o preserve t h e possessory r i g h t

t o t h e claim. In addition, the Federal s t a t u t e s t a t e s t h a t

if t h e a s s e s s m e n t work i s n o t d o n e i n a g i v e n y e a r , but i f

the original locator resumes working on the claim, the

dereliction of the year before is forgiven i f t h e work is

resumed b e f o r e r e l o c a t i o n . Thus, t h e F e d e r a l s t a t u t e s i m p l y

r e q u i r e s t h e work t o b e d o n e a n n u a l l y . I f t h e work i s n o t

done t h e c l a i m i s open f o r r e l o c a t i o n . I f t h e work i s d o n e

t h e c l a i m i s n o t open f o r r e l o c a t i o n .

The W i l k e s do not dispute the fact that the Fishers

performed t h e r e q u i r e d a s s e s s m e n t work o n e a c h o f the four

claims. The W i l k e s c o n c e d e t h a t a n n u a l l y , i n c l u d i n g t h e y e a r

ending August 31, 1977, t h e F i s h e r s t r a v e l l e d t o t h e c l a i m s

and performed and made improvements amounting to a t least

$100. Instead, t h e Wilkes argue t h a t because the Fishers

failed to file an affidavit of annual work for the year

e n d i n g August 31, 1977, the Fishers' claims were forfeited

under 5 82-2-103, MCA. The Wilkes assert that under the

wording of 5 82-2-103, MCA, the legislature unequivocally

mandated a forfeiture of Fishers' i n t e r e s t i n t h e i r claims

f o r f a i l u r e t o f i l e t h e i r a f f i d a v i t o f a n n u a l work.

I n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f 5 82-2-103, MCA,

the Wilkes rely on the chanqe of wording by the 1971

legislature of then 5 50-704, R.C.M. (1947) , which

s u b s t i t u t e d t h e p e r m i s s i v e word "may" f o r t h e m a n d a t o r y word

"must" with reference to the filing with the clerk and

r e c o r d e r o f t h e a f f i d a v i t o f a n n u a l work. The amendment h a s

now b e e n codified as 82-2-103, MCA. Although t h i s Court p o s e d t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e l e g a l e f f e c t o f t h i s amendment i n

Sawyer-Adecor International, Inc. v. Anglin ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 198 Mont.

440, 646 P.2d 1194, we deferred interpretation of the new

l a n g u a g e b e c a u s e w e r u l e d t h a t S 82-2-103, MCA, d i d n o t come

i n t o p l a y and was i r r e l e v a n t i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . The

c a s e a t b a r , however, p r e s e n t s a n o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h i s C o u r t

t o i n t e r p r e t t h e new l a n g u a g e o f 5 82-2-103, MCA.

I n Sawyer-Adecor I n t e r n a t i o n a l we developed t h e h i s t o r y

of S 82-2-103, MCA, by e x p l o r i n g t h e language o f former

50-704, R.C.M. (1947) . We stated that former S 50-704 p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e owner o f a l o a d o r p l a c e r m i n i n g c l a i m who

p e r f o r m e d t h e a n n u a l a s s e s s m e n t work "may" f i l e i n t h e o f f i c e

of t h e c o u n t y c l e r k and r e c o r d e r where t h e c l a i m was s i t u a t e d

an affidavit showing t h e n a t u r e and character of t h e work

that had been done on the mining claim. Section 50-704

f u r t h e r provided t h a t "such a f f i d a v i t s . . . are prima f a c i e

evidence o f t h e f a c t s t h e r e i n s t a t e d . "

While t h e f o r m e r S 50-704, R.C.M. was i n e f f e c t t h i s

C o u r t d e c i d e d Coleman v. Curtis ( 1 8 9 2 ) , 1 2 Mont. 301, 30 P .

266, w h i c h h e l d t h a t c o m p l y i n g w i t h t h e s t a t u t e was m e r e l y a

means o f p r e s e r v i n g p r i m a f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e a s s e s s m e n t

work requirements had been fulfilled. Later in 1895 came

Davidson v . Bordeau (1895), 1 5 Mont. 245, 38 P. 1075, in

which t h i s C o u r t d e c i d e d t h a t w h i l e t h e a f f i d a v i t o f a n n u a l

work was prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e a s s e s s m e n t work had

been done, o r a l evidence could be given t o prove t h a t t h e

work had b e e n d o n e w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e a f f i d a v i t . Hence,

i t was t h e e s t a b l i s h e d law i n Montana f o r seventy-six years

t h a t i f o n e p e r f o r m e d t h e f e d e r a l l y r e q u i r e d a s s e s s m e n t work

t h a t t h e possessory r i g h t s t o t h e claim w e r e preserved.

As stated above, S. 50-704, R.C.M (1947), was

s u b s e q u e n t l y amended by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n 1 9 7 1 , a n d i s now

carried f o r w a r d a s S 82-2-103, MCA. The e f f e c t o f t h e 1 9 7 1 amendment, as this Court explained in Sawyer-Adecor

International, i s t h a t w h e r e a s u n d e r S 50-704 the f i l i n g of

an annual a f f i d a v i t was p e r m i s s i v e ("may") it i s now u n d e r

S 82-2-103, MCA, mandatory ("must"). In addition, the last

sentence of § 50-704 which provided that "such

affidavits . . . are prima facie evidence of the facts

t h e r e i n s t a t e d " was r e t a i n e d by t h e 1971 amendment v e r b a t i m .

And f u r t h e r m o r e , t h e 1971 amendment added t h i s p r o v i s i o n a s

t h e l a s t s e n t e n c e t o S 82-2-103, MCA: "The f a i l u r e t o f i l e

s u c h a f f i d a v i t s w i t h i n t h e p e r i o d a l l o w e d t h e r e f o r s h a l l be

prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t s u c h l a b o r h a s n o t been p e r f o r m e d

and t h a t t h e owner o f t h e c l a i m h a s abandoned o r s u r r e n d e r e d

same. " In reviewing the case law and language of former

5 50-704, R.C.M. (1947) , and t h e new l a n g u a g e o f 5 82-2-103,

MCA, i t i s c l e a r t o t h i s C o u r t t h a t it i s t h e a s s e s s m e n t work

and n o t t h e a f f i d a v i t o f a n n u a l work t h a t c o n t r o l s . W e agree

w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t t h e omission of t h e a f f i d a v i t i s

o n l y prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e a s s e s s m e n t work was n o t

performed. W e do n o t a g r e e with t h e Wilkes' argument t h a t

the legislature in adopting S 82-2-103, MCA, unequivocally

mandated a forfeiture of Fishers' i n t e r e s t i n t h e i r mining

claims f o r f a i l u r e t o f i l e t h e i r a f f i d a v i t of a n n u a l work.

The W i l k e s i g n o r e t h e l a s t s e n t e n c e o f 9 82-2-103, MCA, which

s a y s t h a t t h e o m i s s i o n t o f i l e a n a f f i d a v i t i s "prima f a c i e

e v i d e n c e t h a t s u c h l a b o r h a s n o t been p e r f o r m e d . " Since t h e

work was admittedly performed, this Court holds that the

Fishers' claims w e r e n o t s u b j e c t t o f o r f e i t u r e because o f t h e

failure to file one affidavit in a period of over thirty

years. C e r t a i n l y t h e F i s h e r s ' c l a i m s w e r e n e v e r abandoned.

Thus we hold that while § 82-2-103, MCA, made the

f i l i n g o f a n a f f i d a v i t o f a n n u a l work m a n d a t o r y , t h e p e n a l t y

f o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e mandate r e q u i r e s t h e owner t o assume the burden of proving that he did in fact locate the claim and that he did the assessment work within the federal mining year. In the case at bar the Fishers proved the work was done, the Wilkes conceded the work was done, and the trial court found the work was done. Hence, the presumption that the work was not done was contradicted and overcome by other evidence. Since the work was done the federal statutory requirement was met (30 U.S.C. § 28) and the plaintiffs are entitled to keep their possessory rights to the claims against all but the United States. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

We concur: