Our Lady of the Rockies, Inc. v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 01 April 2008
• Docket Number: No. 05-057.,05-057.
• Parties: OUR LADY OF THE ROCKIES, INC., a Montana non-profit corporation, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Kent PETERSON, Kathleen A. Peterson, Lisle Wood, Pauline Wood, n/k/a Pauline Thomas, Jonathan B. Clark, Vidgis J. Clark, Jeffrey A. Beckett, Jeannine A. Stallings, Jennifer A. Kochel and Jill A. Johns, Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

181 P.3d 631

2008 MT 110

342 Mont. 393

OUR LADY OF THE ROCKIES, INC., a Montana non-profit corporation, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Kent PETERSON, Kathleen A. Peterson, Lisle Wood, Pauline Wood, n/k/a Pauline Thomas, Jonathan B. Clark, Vidgis J. Clark, Jeffrey A. Beckett, Jeannine A. Stallings, Jennifer A. Kochel and Jill A. Johns, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 05-057.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs January 16, 2008.

Decided April 1, 2008.

For Appellants: Gregory G. Schultz, Law Offices of Gregory Schultz, P.C., Shane A. Vannatta, Worden Thane, P.C., Missoula, Montana.

For Appellee: J. Richard Orizotti, Poore, Roth & Robinson, P.C., Butte, Montana.

Justice JAMES C. NELSON delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Kent Peterson, Kathleen A. Peterson, Lisle E. Wood, Pauline P. Wood (now known as Pauline P. Thomas), Jonathan B. Clark, and Vidgis J. Clark¹ (collectively, "Landowners") appeal from the order of the District Court for the Second Judicial District, Silver Bow County, granting partial summary judgment in favor of Our Lady of the Rockies, Inc. ("OLR"). We reverse.

¶ 2 The parties raise a number of issues related to the easement at issue here; however, the dispositive question on appeal is as follows: Did the District Court err in concluding that the federal government expressly reserved a public road across the Landowners' properties by referring in an 1896 federal land patent to a mineral survey that depicted a road labeled "ROAD"?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Overview of Patenting Under the General Mining Act of 1872

¶ 3 A brief overview of the process of securing a patent to a mining claim is helpful in understanding the facts and issues of this case. Under the General Mining Act of 1872,² a private citizen may enter federal lands to explore for valuable mineral deposits. California Coastal Com'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572, 575, 107 S.Ct. 1419, 1422, 94 L.Ed.2d 577 (1987). If a valuable mineral deposit is located, a mining claim may be filed for a lode or placer claim.³ R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Babbitt, 113 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir.1997). If the claim is perfected by properly staking it and complying with other statutory requirements, the claimant has the exclusive right to possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of his location. California Coastal Com'n, 480 U.S. at 575, 107 S.Ct. at 1422; Talbott v. King, 6 Mont. 76, 97-99, 9 P. 434, 435-36 (1886). The area becomes the property of the locator and, thus, segregated from the public domain — i.e., the grounds within the boundaries of the location cease to be public lands when the location is made—but the United States retains title to the land. St. Louis Mining & Milling Co. v. Montana Mining Co., 171 U.S. 650, 655, 19 S.Ct. 61, 63, 43 L.Ed. 320 (1898); California Coastal Com'n, 480 U.S. at 575, 107 S.Ct. at 1422; Talbott, 6 Mont. at 108, 9 P. at 442; Silver Bow Mining & Milling Co. v. Clarke, 5 Mont. 378, 413, 5 P. 570, 575 (1885). Possessory interest in the claim can be held indefinitely, provided that the annual assessment work is performed, all necessary filings and fee payments are made, and the valuable mineral deposit continues to exist. Independence Mining Co., Inc. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502, 506 (9th Cir.1997).

¶ 4 The holder of a perfected mining claim may secure fee title to the land by applying to the United States Department of the Interior for a patent⁴ and complying with the requirements of the General Mining Act and regulations promulgated thereunder. California Coastal Com'n, 480 U.S. at 575-76, 107 S.Ct. at 1422; Independence Mining, 105 F.3d at 506. One such requirement is filing in the proper land office, along with the application, a survey and field notes of the claim made by or under the direction of the United States Surveyor General showing accurately the boundaries of the claim, which must be distinctly marked by monuments on the ground. See Silver King Coalition Mines Co. v. Conkling Mining Co., 255 U.S. 151, 161, 41 S.Ct. 310, 311, 65 L.Ed. 561 (1921); see also Waskey v. Hammer, 223 U.S. 85, 92, 32 S.Ct. 187, 188, 56 L.Ed. 359 (1912). Upon issuance of the patent, legal title to the land passes to the patent holder. California Coastal Com'n, 480 U.S. at 576, 107 S.Ct. at 1422. Furthermore, title relates back to the date the claim was located. United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 334-35, 26 S.Ct. 282, 286, 50 L.Ed. 499 (1906); United States v. Etcheverry, 230 F.2d 193, 196 (10th Cir.1956); Talbott, 6 Mont. at 106-07, 9 P. at 441. In other words, "the location of a mine is the inception of a title, and . . . the patent, when issued, relates back to the location, and conveys to the patentee all the interest that the government had at the time of the location." Murray v. City of Butte, 7 Mont. 61, 68, 14 P. 656, 657 (1887) (citing Butte City Smoke-House Lode Cases, 6 Mont. 397, 12 P. 858 (1887), and Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U.S. 392, 6 S.Ct. 95, 29 L.Ed. 423 (1885)).

II. The Land and Road at Issue

¶ 5 The Cobban Placer, the Plymouth Rock Placer, and the Plymouth Rock Extension Placer are three parcels of land situated side by side in the East Ridge area of Butte, Montana. The Cobban Placer (the westernmost parcel) was located by William F. Cobban and William H. Lewis in 1892, and the federal government issued the patent in 1896; the Plymouth Rock Placer (the middle parcel) was located by John T. Reese in 1889, and the patent was issued in 1900; and the Plymouth Rock Extension Placer (the easternmost parcel) was located by John T. Reese in 1890, and the patent was issued in 1898. The Cobban Placer has since been subdivided into lots now owned by a number of the Landowners. The Plymouth Rock Placer and the Plymouth Rock Extension Placer, neither of which has been subdivided, are now owned by OLR. It appears from aerial photographs taken in 2002 and included in the record that all three parcels are partially forested, that the Cobban Placer contains a number of structures (residences and outbuildings), and that the Plymouth Rock Placer and the Plymouth Rock Extension Placer are largely undeveloped.

¶ 6 OLR plans to construct a tram, a tramway station, a parking lot, a carousel, associated amusement park rides, and other tourism-related improvements on the Plymouth Rock Extension Placer. The tram is intended to carry visitors up to Our Lady of the Rockies, a 90-foot statue atop the Continental Divide overlooking Butte. Ridership estimates for the first year of operation vary between 14,075 and 60,285 depending on a variety of factors, including ease of accessibility (construction of an exit ramp off Interstate 15 versus use of the existing frontage road) and marketing efforts.

¶ 7 At issue in this case is the specific route by which OLR would like to provide public access to the proposed tramway station. It appears from the 1893 survey of the Cobban Placer (Mineral Survey No. 4200), the 1897 survey of the Plymouth Rock Placer (Mineral Survey No. 5153), and the 1897 survey of the Plymouth Rock Extension Placer (Mineral Survey No. 5154) that a road historically traversed the Cobban Placer and the Plymouth Rock Placer and terminated on the Plymouth Rock Extension Placer.⁵ According to the field notes corresponding with these surveys, the road varied between 6 and 12 feet wide. At present, the road is paved as it enters the western edge of the Cobban Placer. It then becomes a 12-foot-wide dirt road and remains as such until it reaches a metal gate behind the Woods' detached garage (about two-thirds of the way across the Cobban Placer). Beyond the gate (i.e., heading east across the remainder of the Cobban Placer toward the Plymouth Rock Placer), the road is an unmaintained, single-track lane with grass growing down the middle.

¶ 8 The following depiction of the road in relation to the parcels and lots is provided in the record (labels added):

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

III. Proceedings in the District Court

¶ 9 OLR filed the instant action on September 3, 2003, seeking a declaratory judgment that the stretch of road traversing the Cobban Placer is not a "private access driveway," as claimed by the Landowners, but rather a "public" road 60 feet in width "available for all uses of a public road by the public." In support of this claim, OLR argued the following three theories: (1) congressional grant or dedication pursuant to § 2477 of the Revised Statutes of the United States⁶ ("R.S. 2477"), (2) common-law dedication, and (3) express reservation of a public road by the federal government when it issued the Cobban Placer patent.⁷ The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and briefed each of these three theories. In addition, the Landowners argued in the alternative that if an easement does exist for public use, the easement's scope is a 12-foot-wide dirt road, not a "60-foot, 2-lane public highway barreling through [the Landowners'] properties."

¶ 10 The District Court held a hearing on the parties' motions on July 23, 2004, and entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on November 24, 2004. Addressing OLR's express-reservation theory, the court stated that "[a]n express easement by reservation arises when the purchaser's deed refers to a plat where the easement is clearly depicted" (citing Pearson v. Virginia City Ranches Ass'n, 2000 MT 12, ¶ 21, 298 Mont. 52, ¶ 21, 993 P.2d 688, ¶ 21). The court further stated that the reference to the plat "must be sufficient to put the purchaser on `inquiry notice' that the property is being conveyed pursuant to a particular recorded document" (citing Halverson v. Turner, 268 Mont. 168, 173, 885 P.2d 1285, 1288 (1994)). In this regard, the court observed that the Cobban Placer patent refers to Mineral Survey No. 4200 ("MS 4200"). This survey depicts the locations, distances, and bearings of the Cobban Placer boundaries, as well as a number of...