Many traditional mining claims are not perfect squares staked along north-south, east-west lines. The names and numbers identify surface estates no greater than 160 acres, and often only 40 acres. (Many long-standing mining claims, including some of the claims in dispute here, have colorful names.) In addition to its name, each claim can be identified by a unique Alaska Department of Land or “ADL” number.
![little flake mining company little flake mining company](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-krP9JExdCyI/Th0LQezcbHI/AAAAAAAAUwc/gAB9TaMFFCA/s400/grand-canyon-mining.jpg)
The locator of a mining claim, when filing a location notice with the Department of Natural Resources, gives the claim a name. 2 An attempted location is void if it overlaps with mining claims held by others. Through location, a locator acquires a mining claim priority against subsequent locators to the selected claims.Īlthough the locator does not have exclusive use of the surface estate of a mining claim, the locator may exclude other parties from unreasonable uses of the surface estate. Under Alaska law, mining rights on state lands are acquired through the process of “location.” This process entails the discovery and marking of the claim, the posting of a notice at the claim site, and the recording of a certificate of location. Because the relevant facts are intimately related to the requirements of state mining statutes, we begin by briefly describing the legal background of this case: This case arises under our state's mining laws. We affirm the superior court on all but one issue: Because specific findings are needed to pierce the corporate veil, we reverse the entry of judgment and the award attorney's fees against the wife of the officer of the lessee company and remand for further proceedings. The former lessee filed two appeals of post-trial orders, which we have consolidated for decision. Following a three-week trial, the superior court resolved the dispute in favor of the former lessor. The former lessee denied various allegations, raised 13 affirmative defenses, and counterclaimed for the value of labor performed on the claims. In 2007, the former lessor filed suit against the former lessee and its two officer-shareholders, seeking to quiet title to the disputed mining claims, to eject the former lessee and its officers from the claims, and to secure damages under several tort and contract causes of action. The parties disagreed about who rightfully owned the claims staked during the holdover tenancy and broke off their lease agreement in October 2003. In his own name, that officer filed location notices for the newly staked claims with the State Department of Natural Resources. During this time, an officer of the lessee company staked mining claims that overlapped with the claims his company had mined under the ten-year lease. The companies entered a holdover tenancy after the expiration of the lease. The lessee was responsible for mining and prospecting claims owned by the lessor and its president. Two mining companies entered a ten-year mining lease. Aisha Tinker Bray, Guess & Rudd P.C., Fairbanks, for Appellee. Decided: September 28, 2012īefore: CARPENETI, Chief Justice, FABE, WINFREE, and STOWERS, Justices.
![little flake mining company little flake mining company](https://www.redollar.com/wp-content/uploads/gold-flakes-nuggets.jpg)
Little Squaw Gold Mining Company, Appellee. LITTLE SQUAW GOLD MINING COMPANY, Appellee.