[Rockhounds] Fossils - Is Ownership Governed by Surface Rights or Mineral Rights ?

[Alan Goldstein]

I know of a case in Kentucky where person 1 owned the mineral rights and person 2 owned the land. When person 1 negotiated the opening of a limestone quarry, person 2 sued claiming the surface was not part of mineral rights. He won. But if it was a coal mine, he would have lost even though the land would have been strip-mined to access the coal underground. The limestone quarry is still operating. 

Go figure.

Alan G.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rockhounds <rockhounds-bounces at rockhounds.drizzle.com> On Behalf Of Tim Fisher
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:38 PM
To: 'Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem collectors' <rockhounds at rockhounds.drizzle.com>
Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Fossils - Is Ownership Governed by Surface Rights or Mineral Rights ?

I've been following this since it was first reported a couple years ago. I would caution that this is a very state-specific issue, the law as applied to private property varies state to state and even default ownership changed based on dates within a state. Much like water appropriation law, "first in time first in right" often trumps current law. Many of these disputes predate the 1872 mining law where the first attempt to "legally" define a mineral at least at the federal government level was made (to my knowledge). Unlike the concurrent Marsh-Cope "bone wars", oil wars were a thing of the future and that's where subsurface rights got real tricky and real state-specific. Someone will inevitably try to make generalizations but the eventual decision won't be applicable everywhere, and not at all on federal land.

Tim Fisher
Orerockon.com