Murray v. BEJ Minerals, LLC, No. 16-35506 (9th Cir. 2018) : Annotate This Case

Murray v. BEJ Minerals, LLC, No. 16-35506 (9th Cir.
2018)
The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Lige and Mary
Ann Murray, owners of a Montana ranch, who brought the action seeking a declaratory
judgment that dinosaur fossils found on the ranch belonged to them as owners of the surface
estate.
In 2005, prior to the discovery of the fossils, Jerry and Robert Severson, the
previous owners of the ranch, sold their surface and one-third of the mineral estate to the
Murrays. In the conveyance, the Seversons expressly reserved the remaining two-thirds of
the mineral estate.
The panel held, as an initial matter, that definitions of “mineral” found in Montana
statutes, like dictionary definitions, were contradictory and therefore inconclusive. The panel
further held that the Montana Supreme Court has generally adopted the test in Heinatz v.
Allen, 217 S.W.2d 994 (Tex. 1940), for determining whether a particular substance was a
mineral in the context of deeds and agreements regarding mineral rights to land.
The panel held that under this test, the dinosaur fossils, which were rare and
exceptional, were “minerals” pursuant to the terms of the deed, and belonged to the owners
of the mineral estate. The panel rejected the Murrays’ policy-driven arguments to the Heinatz
test. The panel remanded for further proceedings
Murray v. BEJ Minerals, LLC, No. 16-35506 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs, the
owners of a Montana ranch, in a dispute over the ownership of dinosaur fossils. Prior to the
discovery of the fossils, the previous owners of the ranch sold their surface and one-third of
the mineral estate to plaintiffs, expressly reserving the remaining two-thirds of the mineral
estate.
The panel held that definitions of "mineral" in Montana statutes were contradictory and thus
inconclusive. The panel explained that the Montana Supreme Court has generally adopted
the test in Heinatz v. Allen, 217 S.W.2d 994 (Tex. 1940), for determining whether a particular
substance was a mineral in the context of deeds and agreements regarding mineral rights to
land. Applying the Heinatz test, the panel held that the dinosaur fossils were "minerals"
under the terms of the deed and belonged to the owners of the mineral estate. In this case,
the fossils were rare and exceptional, and have special value.
Collapse Summary
Court Description: Montana Law The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment
in favor of Lige and Mary Ann Murray, owners of a Montana ranch, who brought the action
seeking a declaratory judgment that dinosaur fossils found on the ranch belonged to them as
owners of the surface estate. In 2005, prior to the discovery of the fossils, Jerry and Robert
Severson, the previous owners of the ranch, sold their surface and one-third of the mineral
estate to the Murrays. In the conveyance, the Seversons expressly reserved the remaining
two-thirds of the mineral estate. The panel held, as an initial matter, that definitions of
“mineral” found in Montana statutes, like dictionary definitions, were contradictory and
therefore inconclusive. The panel further held that the Montana Supreme Court has
generally adopted the test in Heinatz v. Allen, 217 S.W.2d 994 (Tex. 1940), for determining
whether a particular substance was a mineral in the context of deeds and agreements
regarding mineral rights to land. The panel held that under this test, the dinosaur fossils,
which were rare and exceptional, were “minerals” pursuant to the terms of the deed, and
belonged to the owners of the mineral estate. The panel rejected the Murrays’ policy-driven
arguments to the Heinatz test. The panel remanded for further proceedings.
Murray v. BEJ Minerals (9th Cir. - Nov. 6, 2018)

Here's something that never in my wildest dreams did I previously think would be litigated in
a federal court:
Are dinosaur fossils minerals?
It totally matters. Because the dinosaur fossils found on this property are worth millions of
dollars -- tens of millions, even. And one owner of the land has the right to use the surface
of the property and owns one-third of the rights to the "minerals" on the land, whereas
another owner owns the right to two-thirds of the "minerals" on the land.
So are the fossils "minerals" or not?
What's funny is that no one disputes that the fossils are in fact minerals. 'Cause that's what
fossils are. Even "regular" bones mostly contain minerals -- and here, the fossils are either
hydroxylapatite or francolite, both of which are minerals.
But when you sell (or maintain) your oil and "mineral" rights to a piece of property, that
definitely covers gas, and gold, and copper, and the like. But does it cover dinosaur fossils?
No one thought about the issue at the time. 'Cause no one knew there were fossils on the
property.
So who owns the thing?
The district court said that "mineral" rights don't include fossils. The Ninth Circuit reverses,
in an opinion written by Judge Robreno (sitting by designation from Pennsylvania) -- and
joined by Judge Smith -- to which Judge Murguia dissents.
I remember that during the first days of my Property class in law school we talked about who
owned foxes and the like. Maybe we can now add to that fascinating discussion whether the
ownership of "mineral" rights includes fossils.

Murray v. BEJ Minerals, LLC, No. 16-35506 (9th Cir. 2018) : Annotate This Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Murray v. BEJ Minerals, LLC, No. 16-35506 (9th Cir. 2018) : Annotate This Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Murray v. BEJ Minerals, LLC, No. 16-35506 (9th Cir. 2018) : Annotate This Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Murray v. BEJ Minerals, LLC, No. 16-35506 (9th Cir.

Annotate this Case

Justia Opinion Summary

Murray v. BEJ Minerals (9th Cir. - Nov. 6, 2018)

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.