Jump to content

Is Owning A Gold Claim Worth The Headache And Do You Have One?


Recommended Posts

My point is that I think there are many claims out there that probably aren't valid for many reasons.

For example, here is text out of the Title 30, sec 23 Length of claims on veins or lodes

"...but no location of a mining claim shall be made until the discovery of the vein or lode within the limits of the claim located."

So, my question is how valid is a lode claim that has sat there for 10 years with no work to show a valuable mineral discovery and with no surface indication of a valuable mineral.  There has been no diligent effort to discover a valuable mineral.  Even if a pit was dug but no valuable mineral was found that would just show no valuable mineral and hence no valid claim.

Here are some quotes from Adams vs Benedict in New Mexico that went to this subject regarding drilling 2000' holes to discover the uranium and locate the claims.  Adams was working diligently to do such and took more than the 90 days and the court sided for them.  The interesting case notes are as follows:

"It is our opinion that the rule which has been applied with regard to the placer claims, where the prospectors were hunting for oil, presents a situation very similar to this case, even though it is a lode claim. Whether or not a discovery could be made before the hole was drilled, there is no question that the exposing of mineral in place would require the drilling of the holes as was done by the appellants and appellees. Since the appellants had taken peaceful possession of the premises and since they were actively and diligently working on the claim with bona fide intent to make a location, their right to possession of the claim described in the notice of location and as partly marked on the ground, should be protected. This court is not taking the position that such acts constitute a valid location without a discovery. We merely state that when a person is prospecting for uranium ore which lies at a great depth below the surface of the earth and where he has peacefully taken possession of the premises and is in actual possession, diligently and persistently drilling a hole in an attempt to disclose uranium in place, he should be protected in his possession to the full extent of his proposed claim as against someone with no better right.

It is to be understood that the court does not countenance a prospector taking possession of land in a case such as this without a discovery and holding it indefinitely without going forward with his work. He may hold it only for such time as he is diligently and persistently conducting his operations in good faith with the intent to make a discovery of mineral. An illustration of the operation of this rule is given in Whiting v. Straup, 17 Wyo. 1, 95 P. 849, 855, as follows:"

So again, how many lode claims out there meet this criteria?  And probably placer but those are easier to say you made a discovery but possibly not if the "prudent person"/"marketability" test was to be asserted and how deep the pockets of the claimant are.

There has been much case law based on a lot money being at stake.  A good lawyer and some money I think would bust a reasonable number of mining claims by individuals for a host a reasons.  It just that most claims don't have anything valuable associated with them so why spend the money fighting some claim that is 10 years old riddled with issues from the start along with ongoing issues.  But, the fact that there are no challenges doesn't mean they would stand up to a challenge.

One way I look at it is the difference between mining companies claims vs individuals.  It's night and day for a lot of them.  The mining company is out there working to get a discovery of a valuable mineral:  drilling, geophysics, etc.  The lay person a lot (not all and maybe not most but there is some fraction to who this applies to) of time seems to stake the corners file the paperwork with BLM and county recorder and calls it a day.  It's hard to believe both are equally valid under the law.  And the only way to know is to press the issue and go to court.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, UpAndDownTheHills said:

My point is that I think there are many claims out there that probably aren't valid for many reasons.

For example, here is text out of the Title 30, sec 23 Length of claims on veins or lodes

"...but no location of a mining claim shall be made until the discovery of the vein or lode within the limits of the claim located."

So, my question is how valid is a lode claim that has sat there for 10 years with no work to show a valuable mineral discovery and with no surface indication of a valuable mineral.  There has been no diligent effort to discover a valuable mineral.  Even if a pit was dug but no valuable mineral was found that would just show no valuable mineral and hence no valid claim.

Here are some quotes from Adams vs Benedict in New Mexico that went to this subject regarding drilling 2000' holes to discover the uranium and locate the claims.  Adams was working diligently to do such and took more than the 90 days and the court sided for them.  The interesting case notes are as follows:

"It is our opinion that the rule which has been applied with regard to the placer claims, where the prospectors were hunting for oil, presents a situation very similar to this case, even though it is a lode claim. Whether or not a discovery could be made before the hole was drilled, there is no question that the exposing of mineral in place would require the drilling of the holes as was done by the appellants and appellees. Since the appellants had taken peaceful possession of the premises and since they were actively and diligently working on the claim with bona fide intent to make a location, their right to possession of the claim described in the notice of location and as partly marked on the ground, should be protected. This court is not taking the position that such acts constitute a valid location without a discovery. We merely state that when a person is prospecting for uranium ore which lies at a great depth below the surface of the earth and where he has peacefully taken possession of the premises and is in actual possession, diligently and persistently drilling a hole in an attempt to disclose uranium in place, he should be protected in his possession to the full extent of his proposed claim as against someone with no better right.

It is to be understood that the court does not countenance a prospector taking possession of land in a case such as this without a discovery and holding it indefinitely without going forward with his work. He may hold it only for such time as he is diligently and persistently conducting his operations in good faith with the intent to make a discovery of mineral. An illustration of the operation of this rule is given in Whiting v. Straup, 17 Wyo. 1, 95 P. 849, 855, as follows:"

So again, how many lode claims out there meet this criteria?  And probably placer but those are easier to say you made a discovery but possibly not if the "prudent person"/"marketability" test was to be asserted and how deep the pockets of the claimant are.

There has been much case law based on a lot money being at stake.  A good lawyer and some money I think would bust a reasonable number of mining claims by individuals for a host a reasons.  It just that most claims don't have anything valuable associated with them so why spend the money fighting some claim that is 10 years old riddled with issues from the start along with ongoing issues.  But, the fact that there are no challenges doesn't mean they would stand up to a challenge.

One way I look at it is the difference between mining companies claims vs individuals.  It's night and day for a lot of them.  The mining company is out there working to get a discovery of a valuable mineral:  drilling, geophysics, etc.  The lay person a lot (not all and maybe not most but there is some fraction to who this applies to) of time seems to stake the corners file the paperwork with BLM and county recorder and calls it a day.  It's hard to believe both are equally valid under the law.  And the only way to know is to press the issue and go to court.

You do make a good point that many people don't diligently pursue their discovery. That, in some circumstances, can be a detriment to prospectors but it's not illegal nor does it invalidate their claim. Your points about discovery are well taken but very difficult and expensive to prove.

Your quotes in red don't present a requirement for a valid claim, as you seem to believe, nor does it indicate a claim may be invalid if the discovery process is slow. It does restate the obvious that without intent, process and purpose a mining claim may still be challenged by adverse claimants. That's not news to any miner I've known.

So if I get the gist of your argument ...

The existing claim isn't valid because you don't see any evidence of valuable minerals.

And/Or

You don't think the claimant is doing enough work to prove their discovery.

Do you see the disconnect here? If the claim isn't valid, in your opinion, because there are no valuable minerals then why the heck do you care if the minerals are claimed? If it does have valuable minerals then you will have to trespass to make your own discovery.

First of all understand the case you are pointing to is a dispute between two claimants. The only question answered was who had the better right to the minerals on that particular location. The court did not invalidate a claim but did decide who had the better right to adversely claimed locations. Only one claimant can prevail when the same minerals are claimed by two people.

These are civil matters between private parties and as the court stated in the decision the judgement only applies to those two claims. There is no precedence set. Each civil claim is decided on the unique facts and law involved directly in the dispute. No state court can create, define or alter federal law regarding mineral claims. This judgement only applies state location law. It has no application in another State or if the facts in a new case aren't identical (unlikely).

From the case you cited:

It is well settled, also, that the right to make a location, cannot be based upon a trespass.

A "good" lawyer to challenge an existing claim doesn't exist. Part of the reason for that is stated in the case you cited:

It is fundamental law in New Mexico that in a suit to quiet title the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness of the title of his adversary.

In other words the right to work a claim is based on having a superior title to the minerals. You can't base a claim to title on the weakness of another miner's location. You have to have established mineral title through your own actions alone. The first of those actions being a valuable mineral discovery followed by publicly marking and recording your claim to the minerals.

Of course since you read the case you know that the individual that lost their claims didn't even record or maintain the claim as required by law. They admitted they had never done any discovery work. They had a weak title from the beginning. Easy to challenge the adverse location but it still required a major outlay on discovery, location, exploration, lawyers, courts and more than three years of disputes. I'm not sure anything but a major deposit would be worth the effort unless the senior claimants, as in this case, hadn't bothered to complete their location record. From the case:

The location notices were never recorded and there was no evidence to establish what, if anything, was done in connection with these locations. Evidently the appellants do not base their claims on these locations, but rather on possessory rights under the doctrine of pedis possessio.

Also keep in mind the law requires you access the claim you believe to be invalid peacefully and openly. Working someone's claim because you believe it to be invalid without making an adverse claim is the opposite of peacefully and openly. The lack of public notice or the opportunity for the senior claimant to respond puts your actions in a different class. In fact if you actually discover and remove minerals based on nothing but your personal appraisal or opinion about the validity of the claim you may well be committing mineral theft. If you believe you have a superior claim to the minerals you will need a court judgement to enforce your belief in the real world.

If you read this case critically I think you will see that it's a good argument against challenging even poor locations. The time involved in pursuing an adverse claim could easily take up all your free prospecting time ... and money.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it in a directional sense.  They did not do work in a diligent fashion and so they therefore did not find valuable minerals.  So, both conditions would cause a question as to the validity of the claim. 

There are many scenarios that could cause valuable minerals to be there.  For instance, a CU/AU porphyry that is slightly under cover could exist there.  Say at 20'.  You vectored over to it via surface work of the lithocap in the region.  But the current "claimant" claimed the lease 10 years ago because it is at the base of some mountains with scattered mines.  Current claimant has done nothing over the last 10 years.  Upon visual inspection of the surface, you find no trenches, drill holes, adits, shafts or anything.  You suspect no discovery has been made.  You find the claimant lives outside of the state the prospect is in.  All you can find is an initial claim at the county recorder and the yearly fee paid to the BLM.  You go through the motions of claiming it yourself; filings at the recorders office and the BLM and everything else to the letter of the law.  You line up a drill rig ready to drill and put it on stand-by and then file suit against the current "claimant".

Based on this scenario and how I read the judges decision based on the red highlighted text, the court does not support a prospector taking possession of the land without a discovery and holding it forever without doing work for a discovery.  In the legal discovery of the case, it comes to light that Joe Blow, the original claimant, has made no discovery and done no work outside a few visits the 1st few years.  I guess I find it hard to believe that they would still prevail in such a lawsuit.  This was a key takeaway I read in the case was that diligent work towards a discovery gives the original claimant stronger title.

Does the fact that there are valuable minerals there but they didn't know it for lack of knowledge still give them the right to it?  I believe it wouldn't.

You are correct this would only be worth pursuing for a major discovery.  However, there are new discoveries of lithium in NV and AZ that I'm sure at one time where considered goat pasture.  But if you get some corner shooter just going out to file claims hoping to flip claims to the discoverer at what point does the corner shooter start being unable to claim because they've done nothing to prove their deposit is there.  If you look at Lithium America in NV, they are already a few years into the process of trying to even start the mining.  Would a corner shooter in this caldera still have claim after a few years of nothing or no activity?  There are always overlooked things that are being held by people who have no idea what they got. 

I definitely appreciate your points and knowledge.  I would never attempt to do any of this without prior consultation with a mining specific attorney.  Just for the reason you stated that this could turn from civil to criminal quickly and it's better to have expert legal advice each step of the way.  Personally, I think some claimants wouldn't even bother fighting you because of the legal outlay and if they truly haven't made a discovery why would they fork over lots of dollars on a lawyer to defend something they aren't making money on.  All of this written discussion is based on lay people who take claims as a hobby or some other non-business reason and treat it as such.

And thank you again for taking time to respond in a very thorough manner. 

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...