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 & Warren; John Warren, Dillon,

Montana

For Respondents:

Burgess, Joyce & Whelan; Thomas Joyce, Butte,

Montana

Submitted on Briefs: June 7, 1985

Decided: August 29, 1985

Clerk Mr.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.

In the action below, Catherine Fisher O1Connor 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. John Wilke, Carl Caraker and Robert Wilke ( h e r e i n a f t e r Wilkes) contested the action c l a i m i n g t h e y w e r e t h e owners o f the four claims. The District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Beaverhead County, sitting without a jury, the Honorable F r a n k M. 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 i n Beaverhead County, Montana, namely the "Trapper, " "Martin," "Pocahontas" and "Clara. " These claims are based on properly recorded 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 by either party that the Fishers, or their predecessors in interest, have travel led annua 1I.y 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 since the 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 IJocation, t h e F i s h e r s , or their predecessors in interest, have filed with 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 of annual assessment work. The only exception, that is pertinent to this appeal, to Fishers' regular filing of these affidavits i s f o r t h e year ending August 3 1 , 1977. 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 file any affidavit of annual work for any of their four claims. Although, as noted above, the annual 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 fall of 1977, the Wilkes, discovering the Fishers' failure to f i l e t h e required affidavits of 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 " on November 27, 1977, r e n a m i n g i t t h e "Deana." The W i l k e s adopted the Fishers' discovery site, reestablished its corners, and recorded their Certificates of Location on November 28, 1977, in t h e o f f i c e of t h e Beaverhead County C l e r k and R e c o r d e r . 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 r e l o c a t e on December 31, 1977, the "Trapper," "Martin" and "Pocahontas" renaming the latter the "Mink. " The WiIkes properly recorded their Certificates of Location with the Beaverhead County C l e r k end R e c o r d e r on February 7, 1978.

S i n c e t h e Wilkes relocated the f o u r mining claims i n the fa11 of 1977, both parties have performed the annual a s s e s s m e n t work and filed the appropriate affidavits. The Fishers subsequently brought this lawsuit seeking t o q u i e t title to the four mining claims. The issue presented on appeal is whether the failure of the Fishers to file an affidavit of performance of annual a s s e s s m e n t work on the four mining claims for the year ending August 31, 1977, caused a forfeiture of their interests, t h e r e b y making t h e 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 .

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, MCA, was 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. The F e d e r a l A c t it supplements is the Mineral Lands and Mining Act, 30 U.S.C.S 28. This act specifies how a mining claim is 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,

their heirs, assigns or legal

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

such location ... The period within

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

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, 30 U.S.C. § 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 worth of l a b o r had 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. In addition, the Federal s t a t u t e s t a t e s t h a t if 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 , but i f the original locator resumes working on the claim, the dereliction of the year before is forgiven i f t h e work is resumed b e f o r e r e l o c a t i o n . 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 the fact that the Fishers performed t h e r e q u i r e d a s s e s s m e n t work o n e a c h o f the four claims. 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, 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 performed and made improvements amounting to a t least $100. Instead, t h e Wilkes argue t h a t because the Fishers failed to file an affidavit of annual work for the year e n d i n g August 31, 1977, the Fishers' claims were forfeited under 5 82-2-103, MCA. The Wilkes assert that under the wording of 5 82-2-103, MCA, the legislature unequivocally mandated a forfeiture of Fishers' 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, MCA, the Wilkes rely on the chanqe of wording by the 1971 legislature of then 5 50-704, R.C.M. (1947) , which 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 "may" f o r t h e m a n d a t o r y word "must" with reference to the filing with the clerk and 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. The amendment h a s now b e e n codified as 82-2-103, MCA. 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 International, Inc. v. Anglin ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 198 Mont. 440, 646 P.2d 1194, we deferred interpretation of the new 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, MCA, d i d n o t come 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, MCA.

I n Sawyer-Adecor 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 of S 82-2-103, MCA, by e x p l o r i n g t h e language o f former 50-704, R.C.M. (1947) . We stated that former S 50-704 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 showing t h e n a t u r e and character of t h e work that had been done on the mining claim. Section 50-704 f u r t h e r provided t h a t "such a f f i d a v i t s . . . are 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 . "

While t h e f o r m e r S 50-704, R.C.M. was i n e f f e c t t h i s C o u r t d e c i d e d Coleman v. Curtis ( 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 had been fulfilled. Later in 1895 came Davidson v . Bordeau (1895), 1 5 Mont. 245, 38 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 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 been done, 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 . Hence, i t was t h e e s t a b l i s h e d law i n Montana 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 (1947), was 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 1 9 7 1 , a n d i s now carried f o r w a r d a s S 82-2-103, MCA. The e f f e c t o f t h e 1 9 7 1 amendment, as this Court explained in Sawyer-Adecor International, i s t h a t w h e r e a s u n d e r S 50-704 the f i l i n g of an annual a f f i d a v i t was p e r m i s s i v e ("may") it i s now u n d e r S 82-2-103, MCA, mandatory ("must"). In addition, the last sentence of § 50-704 which provided that "such affidavits . . . are prima facie evidence of 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, MCA: "The f a i l u r e t o f i l e 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 the case law and language of former 5 50-704, R.C.M. (1947) , and t h e new l a n g u a g e o f 5 82-2-103, MCA, 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. W e do n o t a g r e e with t h e Wilkes' argument t h a t the legislature in adopting S 82-2-103, MCA, unequivocally mandated a forfeiture of Fishers' 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 was admittedly performed, this Court holds that 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 file one affidavit in a period of over thirty 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 we hold that while § 82-2-103, MCA, 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. Since the work was done the federal statutory requirement was met (30 U.S.C. § 28) 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: