O CONNOR v WILKE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 84-556 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF I\IONTANA 1985 CATHERINE O'CONNOR, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Alfred Fisher, Deceased; RALPH FISHER, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, JOHN F. WILKE, CARL L. CARAKER, and ROBERT A. WILKE, Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, In and for the County of Beaverhead, The Honorable Frank Davis, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: Schulz, Davis Montana Warren; John Warren, Dillon, & For Respondents: Burgess, Joyce Montana & Whelan; Thomas Joyce, Butte, Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Clerk June 7, 1985 August 29, 1985 J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court. Mr. In the action below, Catherine O1Connor Fisher i n d i v i d u a l l y , and a s P e r s o n a l R e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e E s t a t e o f Alfred Fisher, t o g e t h e r w i t h Ralph F i s h e r , David F i s h e r and P h y l l i s F i s h e r Crnkovich ( h e r e i n a f t e r F i s h e r s ) i n i t i a t e d t h i s a c t i o n seeking t o q u i e t t i t l e t o f o u r mining claims. Wilke, Carl contested four Caraker The District Beaverhead Honorable F r a n k M. Robert Wilke ( h e r e i n a f t e r Wilkes) c l a i m i n g t h e y w e r e t h e owners o f the action claims. District, and John Court County, of Fifth without sitting the a the Judicial jury, the D a v i s p r e s i d i n g found f o r t h e F i s h e r s and awarded them t i t l e and p o s s e s s i o n of t h e f o u r m i n i n g c l a i m s . From t h i s judgment t h e W i l k e s a p p e a l . The p a r t i e s d i s p u t e t h e o w n e r s h i p o f four unpatented mining c l a i m s s i t u a t e d approximately t e n m i l e s s o u t h e a s t of Wisdom, Montana. The d i s p u t e d c l a i m s a r e i d e n t i c a l , a l t h o u g h t h e p a r t i e s d o n o t a l w a y s r e f e r t o them by t h e same names. Fishers are the successors in interest of the late A l f r e d F i s h e r who was t h e u n d i s p u t e d owner o f f o u r u n p a t e n t e d mining c l a i m s l o c a t e d the "Trapper, claims are i n Beaverhead County, Montana, namely " These " "Martin," based on "Pocahontas" properly and recorded "Clara. Certificates of Location d a t i n g back t o t h e y e a r 1948. S i n c e t h e r e c o r d i n g o f t h e C e r t i f i c a t e s o f L o c a t i o n , it is undisputed predecessors by in either interest, party that have the Fishers, travel led or annua 1I.y their to the c l a i m s and p e r f o r m e d a s s e s s m e n t work v a l u e d a t $100 o r more. This assessment work consists of clearing roads, cleaning d r a i n a g e s , i m p r o v i n g t u n n e l s and m a i n t a i n i n g a c a b i n . I t i s a l s o u n d i s p u t e d by e i t h e r p a r t y t h a t r e c o r d i n g of t h e C e r t i f i c a t e s o f their predecessors in interest, since the IJocation, t h e F i s h e r s , have filed with or the B e a v e r h e a d County C l e r k and R e c o r d e r t h e r e q u i r e d a f f i d a v i t s of performance exception, regular filing any annual is that August 3 1 , file of of pertinent these to work. this affidavits The appeal, to only Fishers' i s f o r t h e year ending During t h i s t i m e p e r i o d , F i s h e r s f a i l e d t o 1977. affidavit claims. assessment of Although, annual as noted work for above, any the of their annual four work was performed by t h e F i s h e r s , o r t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t , during t h i s time p ~ r i o d . In the Fishers' fall failure of to 1977, the Wilkes, f i l e t h e required discovering affidavits of the annual work f o r t h a t m i n i n g y e a r , r e l o c a t e d a c l a i m on t h e " C l a r a " 27, on November adopted the corners, and November 28, r e n a m i n g i t t h e "Deana." 1977, Fishers' recorded 1977, their in C l e r k and R e c o r d e r . site, discovery its reestablished Certificates t h e o f f i c e of The W i l k e s of Location t h e Beaverhead on County S i m i l a r l y , t h e Wilkes, m o t i v a t e d by t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e o t h e r a f f i d a v i t s o f a n n u a l work, p r o c e e d e d t o 31, r e l o c a t e on December "Pocahontas" properly renaming recorded Beaverhead the their fa11 of 1977, a s s e s s m e n t work Fishers title is affidavit four the a four whether of mining caused latter end both forfeiture for of "Mink. " The with R e c o r d e r on February 7, the performed lawsuit claims. failure of the of annual year the 1978. f o u r mining claims i n have this and WiIkes the annual the appropriate affidavits. mining performance claims the "Martin" Location parties filed the "Trapper," of relocated subsequently brought to appeal and the Certificates County C l e r k S i n c e t h e Wilkes the 1977, seeking t o q u i e t The issue the Fishers presented to their interests, c l a i m s open f o r r e l o c a t i o n by t h e W i l k e s . August on file an on the a s s e s s m e n t work ending The 31, 1977, t h e r e b y making t h e The thrust of t h e Wilkes' argument that the Fishers f o r f e i t e d t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n t h e mining c l a i m s f o r f a i l u r e t o f i l e a n a f f i d a v i t o f a n n u a l work c e n t e r s a r o u n d t h e w o r d i n g o f 5 82-2-103, MCA. This s t a t u t e provides i n p a r t pertinent t o t h e case a t b a r a s follows: A f f i d a v i t o f p e r f o r m a n c e o f a n n u a l work: (1) The owner o f a l o d e o r p l a c e r c l a i m who p e r f o r m s o r c a u s e s t o b e p e r f o r m e d t h e a n n u a l work o r makes t h e improvements r e q u i r e d by t h e laws o f t h e United States in order t o prevent the f o r f e i t u r e o f t h e c l a i m , m u s t , w i t h i n 90 days a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e f e d e r a l a n n u a l a s s e s s m e n t work p e r i o d , f i l e i n t h e o f f i c e o f t h e county c l e r k o f t h e c o u n t y i n which such c l a i m o r c l a i m s i s s i t u a t e d an a f f i d a v i t o f h i s own o r a n a f f i d a v i t o f t h e p e r s o n who p e r f o r m e d s u c h work o r made t h e improvements ... ... ... (4) Such a f f i d a v i t o r a c e r t i f i e d copy t h e r e o f i s prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e o f the facts therein stated. The f a i l u r e t o f i l e such a f f i d a v i t s w i t h i n t h e period a l l o w e d t h e r e f o r s h a l l b e prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t s u c h l a b o r h a s n o t been p e r f o r m e d and t h a t t h e owner o f t h e c l a i m o r c l a i m s h a s abandoned and s u r r e n d e r e d same. As the statute itself indicates, 82-2-103, § e n a c t e d t o s u p p l e m e n t F e d e r a l s t a t u t o r y law. it supplements U.S.C.S 28. is the This act Mineral Lands specifies how and a was The F e d e r a l A c t Mining mining preserved: [Oln e a c h c l a i m l o c a t e d a f t e r t h e t e n t h o f May, 1 8 7 2 and u n t i l a p a t e n t h a s been i s s u e d t h e r e f o r , n o t less t h a n $100 w o r t h of labor shall be performed or improvements made d u r i n g e a c h y e a r and upon a f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s , t h e c l a i m o r mine upon which s u c h f a i l u r e o c c u r r e d s h a l l b e open f o r r e l o c a t i o n i n t h e same manner a s i f no l o c a t i o n o f t h e same had e v e r b e e n made, provided that the original locators, assigns or legal their heirs, r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , h a v e n o t resumed work upon t h e c l a i m a f t e r f a i l u r e and b e f o r e The period within such location which t h e work r e q u i r e d t o b e done a n n u a l l y on a l l u n p a t e n t e d m i n e r a l c l a i m s l o c a t e d s i n c e May 1 0 , 1 8 7 2 , i n c l u d i n g ... ... MCA, Act, 30 claim is such claims i n t h e T e r r i t o r y o f Alaska, s h a l l commence a t 1 2 : 00 o ' c l o c k m e r i d i a n on t h e f i r s t d a y o f S e p t e m b e r s u c c e e d i n g the date of location of such claims ... Thus, worth of 30 U.S.C. l a b o r had 28 i m p o s e d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t $100 § t o b e p e r f o r m e d o r i m p r o v e m e n t s made on each claim annually i n order t o preserve t h e possessory r i g h t t o t h e claim. if In addition, the Federal s t a t u t e s t a t e s t h a t t h e a s s e s s m e n t work i s n o t d o n e i n a g i v e n y e a r , the original dereliction locator of resumes working is the year before resumed b e f o r e r e l o c a t i o n . on but i f the forgiven claim, the i f t h e work is Thus, t h e F e d e r a l s t a t u t e s i m p l y r e q u i r e s t h e work t o b e d o n e a n n u a l l y . I f t h e work i s n o t done t h e c l a i m i s open f o r r e l o c a t i o n . I f t h e work i s d o n e t h e c l a i m i s n o t open f o r r e l o c a t i o n . The W i l k e s do not dispute performed t h e r e q u i r e d claims. performed that the a s s e s s m e n t work o n e a c h o f Fishers the four Instead, failed to file e n d i n g August of mandated a made improvements t h e Wilkes an 31, 5 82-2-103, wording 1977, t h e F i s h e r s t r a v e l l e d t o t h e c l a i m s and $100. under fact The W i l k e s c o n c e d e t h a t a n n u a l l y , i n c l u d i n g t h e y e a r ending August 31, and the 5 82-2-103, of annual The MCA, forfeiture of Wilkes the Fishers' work assert for that legislature a t the claims were the Fishers' MCA. to argue t h a t because affidavit 1977, amounting least Fishers the year forfeited under the unequivocally i n t e r e s t i n t h e i r claims f o r f a i l u r e t o f i l e t h e i r a f f i d a v i t o f a n n u a l work. I n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f 5 82-2-103, the Wilkes legislature rely of on then the chanqe 5 50-704, s u b s t i t u t e d t h e p e r m i s s i v e word "must" with reference to the of wording codified as 82-2-103, the (1947) , R.C.M. 1971 which "may" f o r t h e m a n d a t o r y word filing with r e c o r d e r o f t h e a f f i d a v i t o f a n n u a l work. now b e e n by MCA, MCA. the clerk and The amendment h a s Although t h i s Court p o s e d t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e l e g a l e f f e c t o f t h i s amendment i n Sawyer-Adecor 440, 646 Inc. v. Anglin International, P.2d we deferred 1194, ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 198 Mont. interpretation of l a n g u a g e b e c a u s e w e r u l e d t h a t S 82-2-103, the new d i d n o t come MCA, i n t o p l a y and was i r r e l e v a n t i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . The c a s e a t b a r , however, p r e s e n t s a n o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h i s C o u r t t o i n t e r p r e t t h e new l a n g u a g e o f 5 82-2-103, I n t e r n a t i o n a l we developed t h e h i s t o r y I n Sawyer-Adecor of S 82-2-103, 50-704, by e x p l o r i n g t h e MCA, (1947) R.C.M. MCA. . We language o f that stated former S 50-704 former p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e owner o f a l o a d o r p l a c e r m i n i n g c l a i m who p e r f o r m e d t h e a n n u a l a s s e s s m e n t work "may" f i l e i n t h e o f f i c e of t h e c o u n t y c l e r k and r e c o r d e r where t h e c l a i m was s i t u a t e d an affidavit that had showing t h e n a t u r e and been done on the mining character of claim. f u r t h e r provided t h a t "such a f f i d a v i t s t h e work Section . . . are 50-704 prima f a c i e evidence o f t h e f a c t s t h e r e i n s t a t e d . " f o r m e r S 50-704, While t h e C o u r t d e c i d e d Coleman v. Curtis was i n e f f e c t t h i s R.C.M. ( 1 8 9 2 ) , 1 2 Mont. 301, 30 P . 266, w h i c h h e l d t h a t c o m p l y i n g w i t h t h e s t a t u t e was m e r e l y a means o f p r e s e r v i n g p r i m a f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e a s s e s s m e n t work requirements Davidson v . had Bordeau been fulfilled. (1895), 1 5 Mont. Later 245, 38 in 1895 came P. 1075, in which t h i s C o u r t d e c i d e d t h a t w h i l e t h e a f f i d a v i t o f a n n u a l work was prima been done, f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e a s s e s s m e n t work had o r a l evidence could be given t o prove t h a t t h e work had b e e n d o n e w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e a f f i d a v i t . i t was t h e e s t a b l i s h e d law i n Montana Hence, f o r seventy-six years t h a t i f o n e p e r f o r m e d t h e f e d e r a l l y r e q u i r e d a s s e s s m e n t work t h a t t h e possessory r i g h t s t o t h e claim w e r e preserved. As stated above, S. 50-704, R.C.M s u b s e q u e n t l y amended by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n carried f o r w a r d a s S 82-2-103, MCA. (1947), was 1 9 7 1 , a n d i s now The e f f e c t o f t h e 1 9 7 1 amendment, as International, an annual this Court explained Sawyer-Adecor i s t h a t w h e r e a s u n d e r S 50-704 MCA, mandatory of affidavits . . . are § ("must"). 50-704 sentence which prima the f i l i n g of ("may") it i s now u n d e r a f f i d a v i t was p e r m i s s i v e S 82-2-103, in In addition, provided facie the last that evidence of "such the facts t h e r e i n s t a t e d " was r e t a i n e d by t h e 1971 amendment v e r b a t i m . And f u r t h e r m o r e , t h e 1971 amendment added t h i s p r o v i s i o n a s t h e l a s t s e n t e n c e t o S 82-2-103, "The f a i l u r e t o f i l e MCA: s u c h a f f i d a v i t s w i t h i n t h e p e r i o d a l l o w e d t h e r e f o r s h a l l be prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t s u c h l a b o r h a s n o t been p e r f o r m e d and t h a t t h e owner o f t h e c l a i m h a s abandoned o r s u r r e n d e r e d same. " In reviewing 5 50-704, MCA, the case law and language of former (1947) , and t h e new l a n g u a g e o f 5 82-2-103, R.C.M. i t i s c l e a r t o t h i s C o u r t t h a t it i s t h e a s s e s s m e n t work and n o t t h e a f f i d a v i t o f a n n u a l work t h a t c o n t r o l s . W e agree w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t t h e omission of t h e a f f i d a v i t i s o n l y prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e a s s e s s m e n t work was n o t performed. the W e do n o t a g r e e with t h e Wilkes' legislature mandated a in adopting forfeiture of S 82-2-103, Fishers' argument t h a t unequivocally MCA, i n t e r e s t i n t h e i r mining claims f o r f a i l u r e t o f i l e t h e i r a f f i d a v i t of a n n u a l work. The W i l k e s i g n o r e t h e l a s t s e n t e n c e o f 9 82-2-103, MCA, which s a y s t h a t t h e o m i s s i o n t o f i l e a n a f f i d a v i t i s "prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t s u c h l a b o r h a s n o t been p e r f o r m e d . " Since t h e work that was admittedly performed, this Court holds the Fishers' claims w e r e n o t s u b j e c t t o f o r f e i t u r e because o f t h e failure to years. C e r t a i n l y t h e F i s h e r s ' c l a i m s w e r e n e v e r abandoned. Thus file we one hold affidavit that while in § a period 82-2-103, of over MCA, thirty made the f i l i n g o f a n a f f i d a v i t o f a n n u a l work m a n d a t o r y , t h e p e n a l t y f o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e mandate r e q u i r e s t h e owner t o assume the burden of proving that he did in fact locate the claim and that he did the assessment work within the federal mining year. In the case at bar the Fishers proved the work was done, the Wilkes conceded the work was done, and the trial court found the work was done. Hence, the presumption that the work was not done was contradicted and overcome by other evidence. statutory Since requirement was the met work was done (30 U.S.C. § the 28) federal and the plaintiffs are entitled to keep their possessory rights to the claims against all but the United States. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. We concur:

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.