Fraudulent top-filers?

[Rail Dawg]

Well I mis-spelled "Fraudulent" in the title will see if a mod can fix my mistake.

We picked up 8 claims in Rye Patch last month and properly filed the COL's/Maps with the county and BLM.

They show up on the county web site and LR2000.

They were part of a 160-acre claim and since the old owners didn't pay their fees we got a hold of them through the proper locating process.

Anyway tonight I see a group of 8 people have top-filed for the entire 160-acre 1/4 section with the county.

What's weird is I called one of the names on the COL to let them know they were top-filing and not to waste money paying the BLM.

The person I talked to had no idea what I was talking about. They were indeed that person and at the address on the COL but they were adamant they had no clue what a mining claim was.

The COL filed with the county looks pretty unprofessional... kind of thrown together.

I'm going to call some other names on the COL but in the meantime what if any recourse does one have in a situation like this?

Seems to me there isn't much we can do even if there is fraud present...

I've tried to reach out and politely call but beyond that any suggestions on a course of action?

Figured the experts here will give me some good guidance.

Thanks!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Assembler]

Keep us posted on any updates.
Thanks

 

[winners58]

are any of them the previous owners, look at the county location date,
I had one claim that the over filers back dated wasn't much i could do.
if you have the earlier location date, then you have superior standing.
run LR2000 open/closed on each person if LR2000 is ever back up, might be a claim flipper.

 

[Rail Dawg]

are any of them the previous owners, look at the county location date,
I had one claim that the over filers back dated wasn't much i could do.
if you have the earlier location date, then you have superior standing.
run LR2000 open/closed on each person if LR2000 is ever back up, might be a claim flipper.

Good idea and no the names don't show up previously at least in that area.

The first person I called on the COL was clueless.

I'll try some other names today... I don't mind calling to say hey don't waste your $$$ filing with the BLM.

Our claims just showed up on LR2000 yesterday but we did locate back in March so we have the superior filing.

 

[mikep691]

I know how unforgiving Rye Patch can be. It might be a good idea to make a discovery in each of the 20 acre claims. You can always reduce the size of the claim and still have the same number of claimants rather than paying for worthless dirt. Just a thought...

 

[Rail Dawg]

Received a call just now from the "leader" of the filers.

He admitted he didn't do his due diligence in regards to researching the county records to see that we had recorded our COL's back in March.

Unfortunately this mistake cost him about $2000 in recording fees but when locating and recording claims you've got to cross your t's and dot your i's.

I've made many mistakes myself with claims and quite honestly have learned a great deal here on what and what not to do.

 

[Rail Dawg]

Plus a shout-out to mylandmatters.org

What a useful tool for research!!

 

[mikep691]

Good on ya for checking and following up. Nobody wants to have to settle the issue in court. If the county is anything like Plumas county, you both will get tax bills unless a quit claim deed is filed. Since they don't verify anything, they will tax the over filers too. I'll let you decide whether to inform them or not.

 

[Assembler]

No "Discoveries" by anyone correct?

 

[hawkeye39]

Received a call just now from the "leader" of the filers.

He admitted he didn't do his due diligence in regards to researching the county records to see that we had recorded our COL's back in March.

Unfortunately this mistake cost him about $2000 in recording fees but when locating and recording claims you've got to cross your t's and dot your i's.

I've made many mistakes myself with claims and quite honestly have learned a great deal here on what and what not to do.

How come those guys didn't see your claim corner posts?

 

[Assembler]

How come those guys didn't see your claim corner posts?

There may have not been any in the past.
Just from the "Rectangular public survey system" and 'Conforms thereto'.

 

[mikep691]

I don't believe Nevada requires them. The state even considered changing the state flower to 3"PVC. But as I mentioned earlier you should have a discovery monument in each of the 20 acre portions of the claim. Keep good records, or it's just money spent.

 

[Assembler]

I don't believe Nevada requires them. The state even considered changing the state flower to 3"PVC. But as I mentioned earlier you should have a discovery monument in each of the 20 acre portions of the claim. Keep good records, or it's just money spent.

BINGO. Each "Location" can only be supported by one "Discovery point / monument".

 

[Bejay]

I am glad the overclaimers backed off once you let them know "what is what". Sometimes such people don't want to play by the rules and then you really have a mess to deal with. The mining laws specify that such matters must be cleared up via the courts and that process is in itself a real process of due diligence. Nice you got it worked out. Way to go!

Bejay

 

[Clay Diggins]

They are lode claims I believe.

Nevada State law (NRS 517.030) requires that the locator must define the boundaries
of the lode claim by placing a monument at each corner within 60 days from the date
of location (fig. 1). If the side lines are not straight, a monument should be placed at
each bend. Boundary monuments can be placed on ground already claimed, but the
location monument and the discovery must be on ground open to location (fig. 2).

According to Nevada State law (NRS 517.030) the monuments may consist of
any of the following:

A. a blazed and marked tree, with top removed and minimum diameter of at
least 4 inches, protruding at least 3 feet above the ground;

B. a rock in place capped by smaller rocks to a total height of at least 3 feet;

C. a wooden post at least 1 by 1 inches square or a metal post (securely
capped if hollow) at least 2 inches in diameter; the wooden post or metal
pipe must be at least 4 feet long set 1 foot into the ground or, if digging a
hole is impractical, placed in a mound of earth or rocks;

D. a stone (not a rock in place) at least 6 inches in diameter and 18 inches long
with two-thirds of its length set in a mound of earth or rock 3 feet in diameter
and 2 feet high; or

E. a durable plastic pipe if it was set before March 16, 1993, provided that it is at
least 3 inches in diameter, 4 feet long, set 1 foot into the ground, and is
securely capped with no open perforations.

So a minimum of 5 monuments per lode claim.

Placer claims when they are located by aliquot part only require a discovery monument along the North boundary of the claim.

These are Nevada location laws, other states have different requirements.

Heavy Pans

 

[Assembler]

I am glad the overclaimers backed off once you let them know "what is what". Sometimes such people don't want to play by the rules and then you really have a mess to deal with. The mining laws specify that such matters must be cleared up via the courts and that process is in itself a real process of due diligence. Nice you got it worked out. Way to go!

Bejay

BINGO. There is "U.S. Mining Case Law" that backs this up. Anyone care to point out some?

Again the point about "Discovery" is not to be taken lightly.

 

[Assembler]

Legal significance of the Monument:

Law provides that the original corners established during the process of the survey shall forever remain fixed in position, even to disregarding technical errors in the execution of the survey, where discrepancies may have passed undetected prior to the acceptance of the survey.

 

[Rail Dawg]

How come those guys didn't see your claim corner posts?

Good question!

Made me think they never went out there.

Our monuments are obvious.

 

[Rail Dawg]

I don't believe Nevada requires them. The state even considered changing the state flower to 3"PVC. But as I mentioned earlier you should have a discovery monument in each of the 20 acre portions of the claim. Keep good records, or it's just money spent.

Good point.

Nevada does require a monument (these are placer claims) and it can't be PVC.

For us it's a 2x2 4' post with the Notice of Location obviously attached.

We take dated pictures of the monument after erecting so should it come down to court we have solid proof we were there first.

 

[Rail Dawg]

They are lode claims I believe.



So a minimum of 5 monuments per lode claim.

Placer claims when they are located by aliquot part only require a discovery monument along the North boundary of the claim.

These are Nevada location laws, other states have different requirements.

Heavy Pans

Yep that's how we see it Clay.

These are placer claims and we always put a monument in the NW corner.