Mineral Deeds: Severed Mineral Interests; Dormant Minerals Act

摘要

The statute involved in this case, citing "the obscure and divided ownership condition of mineral interests in this state," requires "beginning January 1, 1970, every owner of a fee simple interest in minerals that is owned separately from the surface of the property shall file for record in the county recorder record office or the register of titles office in the county where the mineral interest is located a verified statement [citing relevant sections of the statute] and setting forth the owner's address, interest in the minerals, and both (1) the legal description of the property upon or beneath which the interest exists, and (2) the book and page number or the document number, in the records of the county recorder or register of titles, of the instrument by which the mineral interest is created or acquired." Failure to file "before January 1, 1975, as to any interests owned on or before December 31, 1973, or within one year after acquiring such interests as to interests acquired after December 31, 1973 not previously filed shall result in forfeiture to the state after notice and opportunity for hearing.. . ." Trie respondents, asserting their ownership of severed minerals in a 40-acre tract, commence an action to determine adverse claims naming all recorded possible claimants to the severed mineral interest. Only the State of Minnesota answers. Hie case is submitted to the trial court on documents and arguments. The trial court concludes that the minerals are owned by Respondents Bridger (7/36), Gale (77/432), Ballantine (7/432), Snyder Trustees (1/9), and Pillandco (1/2). The filings required under the statute were found to be met for Bridger, Gale, and Ballantine, none of whom filed a statement of their own, by filings executed by previous owners of the interests conveyed to those parties. Pillandco files a verified statement on December 29, 1975. Held: affirmed in part and remanded in part. The statements filed by previous owners suffice to protect the respondents who did not themselves file from the forfeiture provisions of the statute. The statute "describes a one-year period during which an owner who acquired a severed mineral interest after December 31, 1973 is required to file a verified statement." The provision dealing with forfeiture, however, states that forfeiture occurs if an "owner of a mineral interest fails to file a verified statement [in accordance with the statute]" and if the required statement was "not previously filed under the statute, the mineral interest shall forfeit to the state." The position of this exception to the filing requirement in the sentence, following the filing requirement for mineral owners that acquired its interest before December 31, 1973 and the requirement for mineral owners who acquired interests after December 31,1973 makes it "unreasonable to conclude that the proviso does hot also refer to the second clause." The remand is necessary because the statute provides that filing of statements to preclude forfeiture must be done by the owners of the mineral interests at the time and that there is a gap in the title mat is not sufficiently filled in by the evidence submitted to explain how the owners who filed the statement relied on acquired the mineral interest described in the statement.