PERMFILE100850 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• There is likewise no indication that any such discussions or negotiations was had with Witt, the ultimate buyer. While it seems clear Plaintiffs intended to reserve sand and gravel, as testified by Groom, i[ is clear that these discussions were internal in nature and that neither Fedrick nor Witt were in- formed of Plaintiffs' unilateral intent to reserve the sand and gravel rights by the reservation language. Defendant Silver Hawk purchased the subject property from Wit[ in 1992 subject to these reservations and exceptions. Defendant Silver Hawk, in the process of their purchasing the San Miguel Ranch, received a title commitment and a title insurance policy noting the placer claims and the exception relating to the placer claims containing the same exception language outlined above. This is denominated as Tract 2 of Schedule A in the title commitment. Schedule B in the commitment notes the numerous reservations and exceptions relating to oil, gas and minerals throughout the history of the property. The actual title insur- ance policy later issued shows the exact exception and reserva- tion relating to the placer claims. while Plaintiffs and Plain- tiff/Intervenors claim Defendant should have been on notice by virtue of the exceptions relating to the minerals, nothing in the language of the reservation or the title insurance commitment indicated that sand and gravel rights were being reserved. The testimony indicated that Plaintiffs first became aware that Defendant Silver Hawk was engaging in a sand and gravel operation during the hunting season of 1994 consisting of the extraction of sand and gravel pursuant to a lease with the Defendant/intervenors. Some discussions and one or two meetings took place in 1994 and early 1995 involving all of the parties relating to the removal of sand and gravel and minerals. The central dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendant is the meaning of [he reservation relating to the placer claims. Plaintiffs claim no ownership of the top soil or surface material but claims to be the owner of their respective interest of [he sand and grave! pursuant to the exception outlined above. Plaintiffs claim that stone and rock, even if on the surface, belongs to Plaintiffs and, although unaware of any economical way of processing the so-called "black sand," also claim a loss of value by the removal of the black sand which contains precious metal deposits. The Defendant essentially claims that the reservation language contained in the exception does not include sand and gravel and is not included under a general reservation of mineral rights. Further, Defendant claims that including Che word "stone" and the words "mining rights" do not include sand and gravel. Defendant further claims that any loss of value relating to [he removal of black sand as part of the overall sand and gravel operation is de minimis and so intertwined with the sand 6