## Facts

- Surface and mineral estates in eastern Kentucky had been severed by “broad form deeds” granting mineral owners expansive mining rights.
- Many deeds were executed when underground mining predominated and large-scale surface destruction from modern strip-mining methods was not commonly contemplated.
- Surface owners sought to prevent the state from issuing strip-mining permits where a broad form deed did not expressly authorize strip mining and the surface owner objected.
- Mineral owners and coal companies asserted they had enforceable rights to strip mine under prior precedent and challenged Kentucky’s 1984 statutes, KRS 381.930–381.945, as unconstitutional.
- The federal district court issued preliminary injunctive relief and certified state-law and constitutional questions to the Supreme Court of Kentucky; related disputes were consolidated.

## Issues

1. Whether broad form deeds should be construed to authorize modern strip mining that substantially destroys the surface when such methods were not reasonably contemplated at the time of execution.
2. Whether KRS 381.930–381.945 (1984), creating presumptions and restrictions against strip mining under broad form deeds absent specific authorization, is constitutional against due process, “open courts,” and contract/vested-rights challenges.
3. Whether the statutory construction rules permit the state to withhold strip-mining permits when the deed lacks explicit strip-mining authority and the surface owner objects.

## Decision

- The court limited prior doctrine that had broadly permitted strip mining under broad form deeds with minimal restriction or liability to surface owners.
- The court held broad form deeds do not automatically authorize later-developed, substantially more destructive mining methods unless the instrument clearly grants that authority.
- The court upheld KRS 381.930–381.945 as a valid exercise of legislative authority establishing rules of deed construction and regulating strip mining.
- The court approved the statutory presumption that, absent clear contrary language, the deed is construed to allow only mining methods commonly used in the area when the deed was executed.
- As a practical permitting consequence, the state may deny or withhold strip-mining permits where the asserted right rests solely on a broad form deed lacking specific strip-mining authorization and the surface owner objects, subject to judicial resolution of deed intent.

## Legal Principles

- Deeds are construed to determine the parties’ intent from the instrument as a whole, interpreted in light of circumstances at the time of execution.
- A grant of mineral rights and mining privileges is not read to include later-developed methods causing substantially greater surface destruction unless the deed clearly provides for such methods.
- Statutes establishing presumptions about deed intent and limiting strip mining under older instruments can be constitutional when framed as rules of construction and regulation rather than confiscation of vested rights.
- Due process and access-to-courts objections fail where the statutory scheme permits litigation over intent and does not bar judicial review of claimed mining rights.
- The state may implement permitting decisions consistent with deed construction rules and presumptions that protect surface owners from unconsented surface-destructive mining.

## Conclusion

The court rejected an automatic right to strip mine under broad form deeds, interpreting such instruments by the mining methods reasonably contemplated when executed, and upheld Kentucky’s statutory restrictions and presumptions limiting strip mining absent clear deed authorization.


Akers v. Baldwin, 736 S.W.2d 294 (Ky. 1987)