Here's something that never in my wildest dreams did I previously think would be litigated in a federal court:
Are dinosaur fossils minerals?
It totally matters. Because the dinosaur fossils found on this property are worth millions of dollars -- tens of millions, even. And one owner of the land has the right to use the surface of the property and owns one-third of the rights to the "minerals" on the land, whereas another owner owns the right to two-thirds of the "minerals" on the land.
So are the fossils "minerals" or not?
What's funny is that no one disputes that the fossils are in fact minerals. 'Cause that's what fossils are. Even "regular" bones mostly contain minerals -- and here, the fossils are either hydroxylapatite or francolite, both of which are minerals.
But when you sell (or maintain) your oil and "mineral" rights to a piece of property, that definitely covers gas, and gold, and copper, and the like. But does it cover dinosaur fossils?
No one thought about the issue at the time. 'Cause no one knew there were fossils on the property.
So who owns the thing?
The district court said that "mineral" rights don't include fossils. The Ninth Circuit reverses, in an opinion written by Judge Robreno (sitting by designation from Pennsylvania) -- and joined by Judge Smith -- to which Judge Murguia dissents.
I remember that during the first days of my Property class in law school we talked about who owned foxes and the like. Maybe we can now add to that fascinating discussion whether the ownership of "mineral" rights includes fossils.
Probably not many cases on that. But, today, we've got the leading one.
Check it out.
