Placer claim/Lode claim question....

[TerryC]

Ok, you legal eagle gold prospectors.... My brother TimC and I need the answer to this technical question asked. Can a NEW PLACER claim be filed over part of an EXISTING LODE claim.... or in reverse, can a NEW LODE claim be filed under an EXISTING PLACER claim? Seems to me, one can be done but the other cannot. Anyone help us out? TTC

[Ads]

TreasureNet.com is the premier Treasure Hunting Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!

[Terry Soloman]

Tim, this is a question that ultimately must be decided in a Civil Court. I can think of at least three cases - two in the Bradshaw Mountians, where Placer claims were made over existing Lode claims near Columbia, and Cow Creek. Lots of lawyer and court fees.. Be real careful buddy, and remember that the BLM is going to take your paperwork and money, then let God sort it out.

[Goodyguy]

You can file a lode claim over a placer but not the other way around. So when filing a new claim its best to file placer first or you could double stake and have both filed together. But once a Lode claim has been filed on a location you cannot normally file a placer over it.

Although as Terry stated, a Court has the power to decide otherwise.

GG~

[TerryC]

Tnx for responding guys. Seems that as I slept in, this morning, TimC called the people in Yavapai County to learn that we can file a placer claim OVER the lode claim but WE MUST FILE a disclaimer in writing (as part of the claim filing) that we have no interest in the lode claims and/or its workings. The answer given to us was more lengthy but I tried to give it (above) in a nutshell. TTC

[TimC]

I have to correct my brother (TerryC). I talked to a BLM agent in the Pheonix office. The rest is essentialy correct. The disclaimer covers the mineral and mining rights of the overlapped portion. However; hunting, fishing, hiking, etc, are as before and are not effected by the disclaimer. TimC