Jump to content

2017 Annual Claims Filings


Recommended Posts

It's that time again. The August 31 deadline to make your required annual mining claims filings is only a month away.

As she does every year Ruby has compiled general guidelines and a graphic flow chart to help claim owners understand their annual obligations.  If you are confused about the process or just want a refresher review these could help make the process clearer.

These are a free PDF download. Feel free to share, distribute or print these out as long as you retain the attribution.

General Guidelines

Flow Chart

Whatever you do don't be late. You will lose your claim if your filings aren't on time.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Thanks for the info Clay.

Have a question/observation on miners that pay the Maintenance Fee...  Required by law(federal?) to file a Notice of Intent to Hold every year but if you don't, BLM still considers your claim active?  No deadline when to file it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand the question LipCa? I'll make an assumption and hope covering some of the facts will help clarify.

The law requires either a "Notice of Intent to Hold" or a an "Affidavit of Assessment Work" be Recorded prior to December 31st of each year for every mining claim you intend to hold

It is also required that a copy of that Public Record be filed with the State office of the BLM by the same date. Those dates may vary by State but the Federal date can not be exceeded.

You will find that and more at 43 U.S. Code § 1744. Recordation of mining claims.

This is in addition to any fee requirements.

The BLM does not determine the validity of mining claims based on your public record. They do have the right to declare claims "abandoned" should the filing requirements not be met or "void" if the claim was filed on land not open to location. The Public Record you make as required by law is not something the BLM has the power to adjudicate. Only a court of law can do that.

The distinction is not subtle. A Public Record (usually made at the County Recorder's office) has a chain of custody, can be Certified and is accepted as evidence without question by a Court of Law. A BLM filing has no chain of custody, can not be Certified and is only an unauthenticated copy of a transaction.

As you can see it is entirely possible to have a valid claim that is considered abandoned by the BLM. It happens a lot each year. The BLM changes the status of a mining claim case file to "CLOSED", the decision is challenged, the claim is found to be administratively current and the BLM changes it's case file status back to "ACTIVE". Nothing changed with the actual public record of the claim, only the BLM case file status was affected.

It's also possible to have an "ACTIVE" claims case file status with the BLM where no public record has ever been made or the public record is not complete. We see this quite a bit. There is a well known and frequently visited national club claim in California that has been ACTIVE status at the BLM for many years yet there is no public record of the claim. No location notice, no annuals nothing. It's certainly not the only one it just sticks out in my mind at the moment.

Mining claim validity is a matter for a court of law - always. There is no federal administrative process that can adjudicate the actual validity of a mining claim. Administrative process can only determine the status with which a claim is to be treated within the administrative system.

This  two part system of claim validity and administrative status came about because of the BLM's insistence that they didn't have the resources to look up the Public Record for mining claims before making administrative decisions about the Public Lands. They got the right to be notified annually of the status of mining claims in the 1976 Federal Lands Public Management Act (FLPMA). For the 110 years prior to that they and their predecessor had to look in the public record like everyone else. The annual BLM filings are informational only but the BLM is allowed to treat a mining claim as if it doesn't exist if they don't receive the annual notice. It's strictly an administrative requirement but it can, and does, affect your claim's status if you don't comply.

The annual Public Record still has to be made under the law. This is a separate matter from the required BLM filing. This isn't hidden - the law I linked to contains both requirements together in the same section. Lack of a public record can not directly be acted on by the BLM but a mining claim is not valid under the law if the annual recording requirement is not met. This may seem like a point with no purpose until you are sued by an adverse claimant, seek investors, claim a right to compensation in court or apply for a patent. At that point you will come to understand why a Certifiable, complete, current public record must still be maintained.

I hope that helps?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Clay.  Cleared up some of it.

The "Flow Chart" does not have a date or deadline for filing the NOI.. (Under miners that pay the Maintenance Fee)

Then the "General Guidelines" had this which prompted the question:

 

 

from guidelines.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I had the question is because I was looking at filing a lode claim.... Someone filed a "paper claim" on the same area in July 2016 with the filing fee. In August 2016 paid a Maintenance Fee for the following year and nothing else.

I say "where is the Notice of Intent"??    It wasn't filed.

BLM in Sacramento says the claim is void if not filed but will not void it.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you encounter a "paper claim" you have the option of making a valid location over it and suing the paper filer in civil court to remove the cloud on your title. You are not guaranteed success because there is a long history of the courts allowing miners a large leeway in the legal process. Essentially it comes down to the senior claimant's intent when you are the junior claimant attempting to remove their title claim. Intent is a very hard thing to prove if the paper filer actually shows up in court.

The BLM overstepped their bounds if they told you the claim was void due to a lack of a public record. The Federal government is specifically excluded from making determinations about the validity of the public record or acting, or even commenting, about the strength of one location over another. That's because the very first Mining Act that enabled mining of the public lands did so by declaring that the fact that the land was owned by the U.S. had no part in determining the validity of any claim. The entire mining claims system rests on the foundation of this one simple 1865 law. Here is the entire text of that first mining law:

Quote

That no possessory action between individuals in any of the courts of the United States for the recovery of any mining title, or for damages to any such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land on which such mines are, is in the United States, but each case shall be adjudged by the law of possession.

All BLM employees in the minerals and records divisions are instructed in this. (BLM Manual 3833.74) The fact that some weren't paying attention that day or decided Congress didn't mean them is just one more indication of the lax administration of some BLM offices.

There is a catch 22 to the process of overfiling and suing. The courts hate claim jumping. Trying to use the courts to eject a senior claimant with paperwork is claim jumping. If you don't prove your case the question arises of your self admitted trespass on a known claim. You certified you made a valuable mineral discovery when you made your location. To make that discovery you had to prospect the senior claim. If you lose the overclaim you are on record admitting to mineral trespass. There can be court sanctions and/or a countersuit awaiting you should you fail in proving the senior claimants lack of intent. That's bad juju and can be very expensive. Think carefully before you attempt an overclaim.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LipCa said:

Thanks Clay.  Cleared up some of it.

The "Flow Chart" does not have a date or deadline for filing the NOI.. (Under miners that pay the Maintenance Fee)

Then the "General Guidelines" had this which prompted the question:

from guidelines.jpg

For Small Miners the Federal filing deadline was set by Congress as December 30. If you paid the maintenance fee timely your annual federal filing requirement has been satisfied but you still need to make your annual public record. Each State has the right to set shorter periods in which to record. In Arizona for example the State deadline for making your public record is December 30 just like the Federal requirement. California I believe is October 31. I'm pretty sure Montana is September 30. I may be wrong about any one of those dates so please look up your state's requirements.

With so many different date requirements for public notice it would be misleading to announce any particular recording deadline in the flow chart. The BLM filing deadline is clearly indicated but recording deadlines are not indicated for this reason. That's why the flowchart and guidelines are general as to the State requirements and specifically only address filing not recording. This warning is also included on the flow chart.

Quote

Always review State Mining Laws. Dates shown are Federal deadlines. State laws may have earlier required deadlines.

In the end it's up to each claimant to do their own due diligence regarding filing and recording requirements. The flow chart and general guidelines are designed to help claimants to understand the process of staying current on their federal filing requirements. There are several circumstances that are not even mentioned in these aids like how to file if you don't have physical access to your claim, you are on active duty overseas, you have a first half patent certificate or your claim case status is under review for wilderness/National Park etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Clay...

I know that you can run into a mess if you try to challenge a claimant.  Not going to do that but if I can find a clean way to do it, I will.

They did not post any Location notice, Discovery post or centerline posts.

Their discovery monument is a Section corner a half mile from the deposit. Their description from the "discovery monument" puts the claim 3/4 of a mile from the vein/deposit.

They had no idea what they were doing!! 

If they don't pay their Maintenance Fee by September 1,  and I can confirm from BLM, it wasn't paid, I'm filing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would think the Federal courts would also hate people knowingly and purposefully trying to avoid paying the Federal government proper filing fees and annual rents by continuously repapering claims at the recording office level. Refiling over and over without ever advancing to the next step at BLM would seem to be obvious proof of what is up, but the way you make it sound Barry the courts could not care less?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a civil matter Steve. As I pointed out before the first Mining Act in 1865 took the government out of the business of adjudicating mining claim disputes.

Quote

That no possessory action between individuals in any of the courts of the United States for the recovery of any mining title, or for damages to any such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land on which such mines are, is in the United States, but each case shall be adjudged by the law of possession.

Whoever maintains possession of the claim has the right. If you dispute that possession you can sue and it becomes a civil matter for the first court of record at the local level. The federal courts have no jurisdiction in a civil matter. Courts can't act just because something seems wrong you have to sue another person over an unsettled controversy before a court can be formed to consider the issues.

I've heard of these supposed civil claims. I have serious doubts they exist but I guess some people could be that stupid and cheap. Seems to me any mineral deposit worth working would be worth paying the $155 per year fee. Seems like the County Recorders fees over a year would add up to nearly that with gas and time added on...

If you know of such a situation (in real life) it's pretty easy to defeat. Just make your own location the day before theirs expires at the County (90 days). Then the original claimant has the choice of paying the BLM their fees within 24 hours or they can suck eggs. If they do run down to the BLM within the 24 hours you are just out the time to stake and if they don't you can go ahead and record and file the new claim as usual. Either way their silly game is over.

As always witnesses without a direct interest in the claim and photo documentation are important when staking. If this imaginary situation is in California all you need to do is erect a monument with the location notice to start a placer claim.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...