Andersen v. Echols
| Decision Date | 24 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:11-cv-01795CMK |
| Parties | Ron J. Andersen; David F. Clemens; and Dan H. Bailey Plaintiffs, v. Greg Echols; and Michael R. Logan Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
This case came on regularly for trial on June 5, 2013, at the United States District Court in Redding, California, the Honorable Craig M. Kellison, United States Magistrate Judge, presiding; the Plaintiffs Ron J. Andersen [Andersen], David F. Clemens [Clemens] and Dan H. Bailey [Bailey] appeared, in propria persona; and the Defendant Greg Echols [Echols] also appeared, in propria persona. The Defendant Michael R. Logan [Logan] was not present at trial, but did listen to the trial, via telephone, but did not otherwise participate.
This case concerns a dispute over ownership of an unpatented mining claim located in Butte County, California. This actions proceeds on the original complaint (Doc.1). Defendantshave answered the complaint (Doc. 6 and 41) and all parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Docs. 7, 8, 9, 40 and 42; see also order at doc. 43).
The disputed claim is located within the Lassen National Forest in the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 33, Township 25 N, Range 4 E, of the Mount Diablo Meridian, (Butte County Tax Parcel No. 865-000-455-000). In 1993 the claim was first located by Jon E. von Heim [von Heim] and plaintiff Andersen. The placer claim consisted of approximately 40 acres and was named the Stringer Mine [the Stringer]. Exh. 1.
In 2004, von Heim transferred his one-half interest in the Stringer to plaintiff Clemens. Exh's. 3 and 4. In 2010, plaintiff Bailey was added as a partner to the Stringer. Since the mine's location in 1993 it has been properly registered with the Bureau of Land Management [BLM] (CAMC259489) and all required fees have been paid. The Stringer remains in good standing and has never been the subject of suspension, abandonment or revocation.
In 2009, defendant Echols and a third party by the name of Donna Durr [Durr] recorded a mining claim location notice in Butte County, California over the same location as the Stringer. Exh. 8. The new mining claim of Echols and Durr was referred to as the Stimulus Mine [the Stimulus #1].
Shortly after Echols and Durr recorded the Stimulus #1 over the plaintiffs' Stringer, plaintiff Bailey contacted Echols and threatened litigation if the Stimulus #1 was not abandoned. In September 2009, Echols and Durr recorded a Notice of Abandonment to the Stimulus #1. Exh. 9.
Within a month of the abandonment of the Stimulus #1, however, Echols and defendant Logan recorded a new mining claim on the same location as the Stringer and Stimulus #1, but this filing was designated as a lode claim and referred to as the Stimulus Lode Mine [Stimulus Lode]. Exh. 7.
When the plaintiffs became unsuccessful in having Echols and Logan informally abandon the Stimulus Lode, they filed the present action in July 2011 seeking to quiet title to the Stringer,injunctive relief and damages.
During the course of this litigation Echols and a new third party entity referred to as Infinite Light Investment, LLC. [Infinite Light]1 again filed a new placer claim over the Stringer, this time referring to the latter claim as the Stimulus Mine #2 [Stimulus #2].
Under the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. §§ 21-54), citizens of the United States are provided the opportunity to explore for, discover, and purchase certain valuable mineral deposits on guidelines for "claiming" the mineral rights to minerals so "discovered." Provisions are included to allow for local rules to be developed, consistent with Federal laws. The State of California established the manner of locating mining claims, tunnel sites, and mill sites on public lands under the California Public Resources Code (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 3901 - 3924). The power over the disposition of federal land and the minerals contained therein is in Congress and not in the states. Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279, 281-283 (1881). Congress has provided that, unless otherwise withdrawn, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States are free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become citizens. 30 U.S.C. § 22. Certain requirements for the establishment and maintenance of mining claims have been set forth by Congress (e.g., 30 U.S.C.) but federal legislation has traditionally left much regulation to the states and to local customs or rules of the miners of a mining district. 30 U.S.C. § 26; Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 3901 - 3924.
There are two types of mining claims which may be made, "lode" claims and "placer" claims. "Lode claims embrace one or more continuous veins, lodes, or ledges of mineral lyingwithin well-defined seams or fissures in the surrounding rock, within boundaries clearly separating it from the neighboring rock, often deep within the bowels of the earth." 53A Am.Jur.2d., Mines and Minerals, § 19 (2013). "A placer claim is one where the valuable mineral is not found in veins, lodes, or ledges within the rock, but in a loose condition in the softer materials that cover the surface of the earth." 30 U.S.C. § 23; Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 3901; 43 C.F.R. § 3863.1. A lode claim is limited by reference to its course, while a placer claim may not exceed 20 acres for each individual claimant. 30 U.S.C. §§ 23, 35; 43 C.F.R. § 3862.1-1.
In mining terms, "location" refers to the acts required to stake a claim to mineral bearing property. It requires that the boundaries of the claim be marked upon the ground, that the locator take possession and work on the ground, that the claim be recorded, and the performance of whatever else is mandated by the acts of Congress and by local laws and regulations. Creede & C.C.M. & M. Co. v. Uinta T.M. & T. Co., (1905) 196 U.S. 337, 346. Discovery of valuable minerals on the claim is necessary to perfect the claim, but discovery need not precede the other acts of location. Id. After a claim is perfected, a miner must perform at least $100 worth of labor or improvements tending to develop the property each year or the claim will be open to other prospectors until such time as work is resumed. 30 U.S.C. § 28; Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 3912. The period for performance of annual development work runs from September 1st to September 1st each year commencing with the September 1st that follows the date of initial location of a claim. Id.
When a miner has perfected a location of a mining claim, and while he or she continues to perform the required annual development work on the claim, the miner is entitled to the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the borders of the location for so long as he or she complies with all of the laws of the United States and with the state, territorial or local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States. 30 U.S.C. § 26. An attempted location upon lands which are already covered by a valid and existing location of another is void. Schaub v. United States, 207 F.2d 325 (9th Cir. 1953); Osborne v. Hammit,377 F.Supp. 977 (D. Nev. 1964). Where, however, the location is abandoned by the locator or is forfeited for the failure to comply with legal prerequisites for locating and maintaining a claim, then any other person may relocate the claim in the same manner as is required of an original locator. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 3903.
State law provides that within 90 days of posting his or her notice of location upon a claim, the locator shall record, in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the claim is situated, a true copy of the notice together with a statement by the locator containing certain information. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 3911. Recordation of the notice serves as constructive notice to other prospectors, but a failure to record with the county recorder does not work a forfeiture and persons with actual knowledge of the claim cannot take advantage of the failure to record. Yosemite Mining Co. v. Emerson, (1908) 208 U.S. 30 25, 30; Last Chance Mining Co. v. Bunker Hill Mining Co., 131 Fed. 579, 586 (9th Cir. 1904). State law also requires the recordation of an affidavit of the performance of labor and improvements within 30 days of the time limited by law for the performance of such work. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 3913(a). Timely recordation of the affidavit serves as prima facie proof of the performance of the work stated in the affidavit. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 3913(b). A failure to record the affidavit timely creates a prima facie presumption of the act and intent of the owner to abandon the claim at the end of the assessment year in which the work should have been done and imposes upon the owner the burden of proof of showing that the work was performed in any contest, suit or proceeding touching the title to the claim. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 3913(c). But, under state law, the failure to record the affidavit does not work a forfeiture of the claim if the owner proves that he or she in fact performed the requisite annual work. Hickel v. Oil Shale Corp., (1970) 400 U.S. 48, 53; Tosco Corp. v. Hodel, 611 F.Supp. 1130 (D. Colo. 1985).
In 1976, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) was enacted by Congress in an attempt to solve the problem of dormant unpatented mining claims. This act created a federal repository, describing where, when, and by whom mining claims had beenlocated. Topaz Beryllium Co. v. United States, 479 F.Supp. 309, 312 (D. Utah 1979). The act so requires owners of mining claims to file, before specific deadlines, notices of mining claims and annual statements showing continued interest in the mining claims. 43 U.S.C. § 1744.2
Section 1744(b) requires the owner of an unpatented mining claim to file with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial