Patented Claims

[B H Prospector]

Here is one for the legal eagles in Tnet. If a placer claim was patented in the 1930's during the depression, and WWII comes along and mining ceases for the duration, and the owners do not return after the war does the land title revert back to the government or could it be picked up for taxes?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Assembler]

"Papers"

This is why I was asking. The state had the School of Mines do a survey of all the claims and patents in the Black Hills in the 30's. The ground I have a claim on is listed as a patented claim. However over the past 30 or 40 years there have been several claims filed and dropped on this ground. I do know patented ground can't be claimed and that is what makes this interesting to me. If all I have is a placer claim I'm good with that. It is a good claim. I just want to know so I will start the dig.

Thanks again

The survey will be made in strict conformity with, or be embraced within, the lines of the location upon which the order is based. If the survey and location are identical that fact will be clearly stated in the field notes. If not identical, a bearing and distance will be given in the field notes from each established corner of the survey to the corresponding corner of the location.

This will be contained in the "Papers". If there was no "Order number" issued from the "Director of Land Office" this will also be clear within the "Papers".
P.S.
One needs to take a look at the "Papers" in order to see what the "Land" is.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Assembler]

Papers

Hello
It may not hurt to contact the family 'Holding the Papers' to ask if you can "Mine" on the "Patent" if no "Mining" is taken place today? The family may let you take a look (photo copy) of the "Papers" as well?
The "Patent" can be for ether "Placer or Lode" and will be clear on the face of the "Papers".

 

[Goldwasher]

where our claims are there are two patents. When you run a report nothing will come up about a patent. Online or lr2000. If you do what you should and reference a plat and parcel map it shows the fed land and the private land.
Some real estate maps have parcel lines on them. Though there can be some lines off. Generally parcel maps are a goood reference of how private and public meet.
When BLM runs a report they just check for active claims in a section. It is the locators duty to know the way the lines plot out. It would be very easy to locate wrong and encompass all or part of a patent and have an invalid claim. The BLM will never tell you.
In fact I'm sure it happens often and "for years" people most surely can file claims in an area and have them not be valid.

There would be no dispute until a citizen has an issue. Blm isn't going to double check it when you locate.

The only relevance of a survey is where it set the corners and lines on the ground. The "type" of survey is pointless.

You need to look at a map that shows private land and plot (you should be able to just look at it) if the private land is within your claim as described.

Or go the easy route go on mylandmatters and check the land status map.

If you can't figure it out send me a pm and i'll tell you what I see.

The first thing people need to do when talking about "patented mines" is take the term "patented mine" out of the equation and replace it with

"some ones property"

You don't need to ask permission to see a map of where peoples private land is. The internet and county have all that info to research.

 

[Assembler]

Surveys

Hello
Almost every "Manual of Surveying Instructions" clearly points out within "Distinguishing features of the Mineral Survey":

These surveys are made to mark the legal boundaries of mineral deposits or ore bearing formations on the public domain, where the boundaries are to be determined by lines other than the normal subdivision of the public lands. The right of the mineral claimant to appropriate and develop the mineral values, and to proceed to patent varies.

 

[Assembler]

Big reason.

Hello
Almost every "Manual of Surveying Instructions" clearly points out within "Distinguishing features of the Mineral Survey":

It has been repeatedly held by both State and Federal courts that plats and field notes referred to in patents may be resorted to for the purpose of determining the limits of the area that passed under such patents.

This is the biggest reason one should read the "Papers" in regards to "Field notes" laying out some details.

 

[Assembler]

Hello
The question of private or public can be determined by maps.
If you happen to research a little deeper to read the "Papers" let us know thank you.

 

[Goldfinger450]

When you talk "Land Patent, I think ALLODIAL Land Patent" If You can establish Allodial title to any property it is the same as Your Own country where You are the SOVEREIGN Owner as Such== The KING, you can have people confined or whatever You decide to do with them for being on the Property, Allodial title are Hard to get now as DOT GOV. does NOT want US to have the info to do properly an ALLODIAL Land Patent and title, as they Never pay taxes to the state or feds again.

 

[Clay Diggins]

When you talk "Land Patent, I think ALLODIAL Land Patent" If You can establish Allodial title to any property it is the same as Your Own country where You are the SOVEREIGN Owner as Such== The KING, you can have people confined or whatever You decide to do with them for being on the Property, Allodial title are Hard to get now as DOT GOV. does NOT want US to have the info to do properly an ALLODIAL Land Patent and title, as they Never pay taxes to the state or feds again.

Wow that's cool! Is this in Uganda?

If you are referring to fee simple patent grants (allodial) in the United States you are mistaken. The U.S. the States and the Supreme Court have long held that once the land has been granted in fee simple (allodial) the land is subject to taxation by the State.

Heavy Pans

 

[Assembler]

Land Titled
Const. art. 14, section 2, provides that all general land certificates shall be located, surveyed, or patented only on vacant and unappropriated public domain, and not on any “land titled” or equitably owned under color of title from the sovereignty of the state, evidence of the appropriation of which is on the county record or in the general land office, or when the appropriation is evidenced by the occupation of the owner or of some person holding for him.

 

[Assembler]

Land Titled
Const. art. 14, section 2, provides that all general land certificates shall be located, surveyed, or patented only on vacant and unappropriated public domain, and not on any “land titled” or equitably owned under color of title from the sovereignty of the state, evidence of the appropriation of which is on the county record or in the general land office, or when the appropriation is evidenced by the occupation of the owner or of some person holding for him.

Anyone come across "General Land Certificates"?

 

[Assembler]

Update

Anyone come across "General Land Certificates"?

If you happen to come across any of the following please let me know:
"Certificate of surveyor, Certificate of approval, Certificate of transcript, Certificate for Patent application on Mineral Survey NO."
Thank you.

 

[augoldminer]

patent mines can and have been lost from state and federal records so you need to check state and county tax records and land use records.

Another thing many don't understand is adverse possession of patent mining property.

In the early 1970 a friend filed 4 mining claims in san Bernardino county.
San Bernardino county would send you a tax bill for something like $1.25 a year.
In the middle 1980s my friend found that 3 of his claims were part of a patented mining property.

In order to assert a claim of adverse possession in California, the claimant (party seeking to gain title to the property) must demonstrate: ... adverse and hostile possession; continuous possession for a period of five years; and. payment of all taxes assessed against the property during the five-year period.

How To Get A Property Through Adverse Possession in California

Since my friend had held the property for over 12 years under a mining claim and had done the yearly work on the claim and had paid the property tax we went to the county and filed a adverse possession claim and the county gave him a deed for the property.

we found that the patented mining property was patented back in 1910 and the mining company was long bankrupt.
We also file mining claims on 5 other parts of the patented mining property and he got them 6 years later.

As far as we know we are the only one to use adverse possession to gain control of patented mining property in the calif desert.

 

[Goldwasher]

A patent is private land. Your friend couldn't have filed a mining claim on a patent.

As your friend discovered you can because the BLM will let you. But, that doesn't mean he filed a valid claim.

A patent has a parcel number at the county and can't be lost.

What happened in the 1970's and '80's is not going to happen today, I also have a feeling there was more to it than just filing on old patents.

There's a reason your friend is the "only" one you know who did this.

 

[Assembler]

A patent is private land. Your friend couldn't have filed a mining claim on a patent.

As your friend discovered you can because the BLM will let you. But, that doesn't mean he filed a valid claim.

A patent has a parcel number at the county and can't be lost.

What happened in the 1970's and '80's is not going to happen today, I also have a feeling there was more to it than just filing on old patents.

There's a reason your friend is the "only" one you know who did this.

What are all the reasons why "What happened in the 1970's and '80's is not going to happen today, I also have a feeling there was more to it than just filing on old patents."?

 

[Clay Diggins]

A patent is private land. Your friend couldn't have filed a mining claim on a patent.

As your friend discovered you can because the BLM will let you. But, that doesn't mean he filed a valid claim.

A patent has a parcel number at the county and can't be lost.

What happened in the 1970's and '80's is not going to happen today, I also have a feeling there was more to it than just filing on old patents.

There's a reason your friend is the "only" one you know who did this.

BLM had nothing to do with claims before 1976 Goldwasher. Locators just needed to record with the County back then.

The story smells for several reasons.

• Mining claim taxes are on the minerals - not the land, they do not count towards land parcel taxes.
• No County has the power to issue a property deed based on adverse possession. Only a court of law can decide for an adverse interest.
• Adverse possession has to be open and notorious - the property owner has to know that the land is being used adverse to their interest.
• Occupation of the land is required for adverse possession - occupation includes things like building houses, growing crops and improvement to the land. Mining claims do not occupy the land they occupy the minerals. Mining minerals is not occupation or an improvement to the land.

More than likely the story told is a mishmash of the 1968 California case where a tax sale of a patented mine property included three former mining claims was contested. The San Bernardino tax assessor messed up the tax bills on one of the patents because of a split school tax district and the owners who lost the land to the tax sale objected that the former mining "claim" was not part of the sale. They sued and lost the case and the land anyway. There was never any adverse possession but this story is so similar to the actual tax sale case I imagine that's how it got started.

Here's an example of an attempted adverse possession case in California based on a mining claim Brown v. Murphy. Obviously the court shows that adverse possession can't be had just by mining the minerals on a property.

Heavy Pans

 

[Goldwasher]

yea...I forget BLM is a relatively new pain in the @#$

 

[Assembler]

Thanks for any new details. Yes there was a new layer after 1976.

 

[Assembler]

"Certificates"

Thanks for any new details. Yes there was a new layer after 1976.

One document that may clear up a few things is the "Certificate of Surveyor" as the "Mining claim by claimant or grantors" are 'Fully stated in the report therein'.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

BLM had nothing to do with claims before 1976 Goldwasher. Locators just needed to record with the County back then.

The story smells for several reasons.

• Mining claim taxes are on the minerals - not the land, they do not count towards land parcel taxes.
• No County has the power to issue a property deed based on adverse possession. Only a court of law can decide for an adverse interest.
• Adverse possession has to be open and notorious - the property owner has to know that the land is being used adverse to their interest.
• Occupation of the land is required for adverse possession - occupation includes things like building houses, growing crops and improvement to the land. Mining claims do not occupy the land they occupy the minerals. Mining minerals is not occupation or an improvement to the land.

More than likely the story told is a mishmash of the 1968 California case where a tax sale of a patented mine property included three former mining claims was contested. The San Bernardino tax assessor messed up the tax bills on one of the patents because of a split school tax district and the owners who lost the land to the tax sale objected that the former mining "claim" was not part of the sale. They sued and lost the case and the land anyway. There was never any adverse possession but this story is so similar to the actual tax sale case I imagine that's how it got started.

Here's an example of an attempted adverse possession case in California based on a mining claim Brown v. Murphy. Obviously the court shows that adverse possession can't be had just by mining the minerals on a property.

Heavy Pans

If only it was so easy....start paying the taxes.

Adverse possession is almost always misunderstood.
There apparently is much more to the story than what is being repeated.

Courts do hand down many improper decisions that do not get appealed (especially in California).

AUGoldminer you said "As far as we know we are the only one to use adverse possession to gain control of patented mining property in the calif desert."
Sounds like you were personally involved.
Surely this was the result of a court action. Do you have a court reference?

Also you said you filed 5 more claims over the patented property...why would you attempt to take private property that was not yours?

 

[Assembler]

If only it was so easy....start paying the taxes.

Adverse possession is almost always misunderstood.
There apparently is much more to the story than what is being repeated.

Courts do hand down many improper decisions that do not get appealed (especially in California).

AUGoldminer you said "As far as we know we are the only one to use adverse possession to gain control of patented mining property in the calif desert."
Sounds like you were personally involved.
Surely this was the result of a court action. Do you have a court reference?

Also you said you filed 5 more claims over the patented property...why would you attempt to take private property that was not yours?

The rest of the story is going to be in the court actions. Filing 5 more claims seems like nothing is happening there.
Thanks for pointing this out as most of us out here just do not know.