Southwestern Iron and Steel Industries, Inc. v. State, 13927
| Decision Date | 05 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 13927,13927 |
| Parties | SOUTHWESTERN IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. STATE of Arizona, and Andrew L. Bettwy, Commissioner of the State Land Department, State of Arizona, Appellees. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Hubert E. Kelly and Michael E. Kelly, Phoenix, for appellant.
Bruce E. Babbitt, former Atty. Gen., John A. LaSota, Jr., former Atty. Gen., Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by Dale Pontius and Thomas Prose, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellees.
Appellant Southwestern Iron & Steel Industries (hereafter Southwestern) appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court of Maricopa County denying Southwestern the relief it had sought as petitioner in the special action below. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101 and 17A A.R.S. Civil Appellate Proc. Rules, rule 19(e).
Southwestern is the assignee of four mineral leases designated M-711, M-712, M-713, and M-714. The State of Arizona through the Arizona State Land Department is the lessor. In October of 1976 Southwestern sought to renew the above mentioned leases for a second 20-year term pursuant to the provisions of A.C.R.R. R12- 5-705(G), which provided Southwestern a preferred right to renew the leases. One hundred sixty-six 20-acre claims were consolidated under the above mentioned leases. In compliance with A.R.S. § 37-108(15) Southwestern paid application fees of $25.00 for each of the four applications for a total of $100.00. Southwestern also paid advance rental charges of $15.00 per claim for a total of $2,520.00. The commissioner asserted that the $25.00 application fee was payable on a per claim basis and not on a per lease basis, and demanded a total of $4,150.00 representing a $25.00 application filing fee for each of the 166 claims. Southwestern refused to pay the additional amount. In September of 1976 the commissioner issued an order rejecting Southwestern's applications and an order to show cause why Southwestern's interests in the subject property should not be terminated at the expiration of its existing leases. Southwestern then filed a special action in the superior court requesting that the commissioner be compelled to receive and act on its application. The superior court denied Southwestern's requested relief and dismissed its special action with prejudice.
Southwestern's first argument is that the commissioner is without authority to charge the $25.00 application fee for the processing of a Renewal application. A.R.S. § 37-108 sets out various fees to be charged for certain filings, but does not specifically state that a fee may be charged for the filing of a renewal application. A.R.S. § 37-108(15), however, allows the commissioner to charge $25.00 for the filing of an original application for a mineral lease. The renewal of a lease is actually the formation of a new contract for an additional 20-year term. We feel that the charging of a $25.00 fee for filing an application for a lease renewal is well within the intended scope of A.R.S. § 37-108(15), and that the action of the commissioner in applying its provisions to the renewal application was proper. We hold that Southwestern is required to pay a $25.00 fee for filing each application for lease renewal.
Southwestern's next complaint concerns the commissioner's decision to charge the same $25.00 fee for each claim that was included in the lease renewal application. As there are 166 claims and only four leases this makes a difference of $4,050.00. We find no basis for the commissioner's decision in either the statutes or administrative rules. The leases in question are for a Type B claim as such is designated under A.C.R.R. R12-5-704. The rules divide claims into two classes, Type A claims and Type B claims. The rules governing Type A claims, A.C.R.R. R12-5-703(J)(1)(a) specifically state that a lease application fee of $25.00 shall be filed for each claim. For ease of comparison, the two rules are set out side by side below.
J. Application for a lease J. Application for a lease
of Type A claim of Type B claim
1. * * * The lease 1. * * * The lease
application, in such form application, in such form
as the Commissioner as the Commissioner
may prescribe, shall be may prescribe, shall be
accompanied by: accompanied by:
a. Lease Application fee a. Advance rental of
per claim. $15.00 per claim.
b. Advance Rental of b. A plat, to scale * * *
$15.00 per claim.
c. A plat of a survey to
scale * * *
A.C.R.R. R12-5-703 J.-- A.C.R.R. R12-5-704 J.--
J.1.a. (1976) J.1.a. (1976)
(Emphasis added.)
As can easily be seen, the rules governing Type B claims do not include the language authorizing the charging of a lease application fee per claim.
The principle of Expressio unius est exclusio alterius as used in statutory and administrative rule construction means that the expression of one or more items of a class and the exclusion of other items of the same class implies the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gamez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona
...have repeatedly used this canon of construction as a tool for determining legislative intent. E.g. Sw. Iron & Steel Indus., Inc. v. State, 123 Ariz. 78, 79-80, 597 P.2d 981, 982-83 (1979). Applying this canon to A.R.S. § 23-901(6)(b), it is evident that the legislature did not intend the de......
-
Jennings v. Woods
...unius est exclusio alterius ("[T]he expression of one thing is the exclusion of another."). See Southwestern Iron & Steel Indus., Inc. v. State, 123 Ariz. 78, 79, 597 P.2d 981, 982 (1979); Roller Village, Inc. v. Superior Court, 154 Ariz. 195, 199, 741 P.2d 328, 332 (App.1987). The first se......
-
Phillips v. O'Neil
...a new and distinct provision." United States v. Temple, 105 U.S. 97, 99, 26 L.Ed. 967 (1881) ; see also Sw. Iron & Steel Indus., Inc. v. State, 123 Ariz. 78, 79–80, 597 P.2d 981 (1979) ("[T]he expression of one or more items of a class and the exclusion of other items of the same class impl......
-
Cohen v. Duncan, C.A. No. 2002-599 (RI 6/9/2004)
...exclude those items not so included." 2a Sutherland Stat. Const. § 47:23 (6th Ed.), 313 n.7 (citing Southwestern Iron & Steel Industries, Inc. v. State, 123 Ariz. 78, 597, P.2d 981 (1979)). While the list may not be exclusive, the Legislature clearly contemplated the zoning certification pr......