## Facts

- A Montana ranch property was split into separate surface and mineral estates by deed.
- The surface estate was conveyed to Mary Ann and Lige Murray; the mineral estate was conveyed in fractional interests, with BEJ Minerals, LLC and RTWF LLC later holding the majority mineral interest and the Murrays holding a minority mineral interest as tenants in common.
- The mineral deed conveyed “the oil, gas, hydrocarbons, and minerals in, on and under” the property but did not mention fossils.
- After the severance, the Murrays discovered rare, valuable dinosaur fossils on the property, including “Dueling Dinosaurs” and a nearly complete Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton.
- BEJ claimed the fossils were “minerals” owned by the mineral estate; the Murrays claimed the fossils belonged to the surface estate.
- In related federal litigation, a certified question was presented to the Montana Supreme Court asking whether dinosaur fossils are “minerals” for purposes of a general mineral reservation under Montana law.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Montana law, dinosaur fossils constitute “minerals” for purposes of a general mineral reservation in a deed.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court answered the certified question “No.”
- Dinosaur fossils are not within the ordinary meaning of “minerals” in a general mineral reservation and therefore belong to the surface estate unless expressly conveyed.
- The court rejected defining “minerals” by a purely scientific classification that would treat fossilized bone as mineral matter.
- The court reasoned that fossils’ value derives from rarity and scientific/paleontological significance rather than mineral composition in the commercial sense associated with mineral development.
- The court emphasized that fossil excavation substantially disturbs the surface and is more closely associated with surface ownership than with conventional mineral extraction.
- A dissent would have treated fossils as “minerals” based on their rarity, value, and extraction methods.

## Legal Principles

- Deeds reserving or conveying “minerals” are interpreted under Montana contract and deed-construction rules, focusing on the deed’s language, the ordinary and natural meaning of terms in conveyancing, and the parties’ intent as reflected in the instrument and context.
- “Minerals” in a property conveyance is a legal term informed by common usage; not every substance that can be scientifically classified as a mineral is a “mineral” for deed-reservation purposes.
- Absent clear, express language, a general mineral reservation will not be extended to cover unusual resources that ordinary land-conveyance usage would not treat as “minerals.”
- Materials whose extraction is closely tied to and destructive of the surface, and whose value is not tied to conventional mineral exploitation, are more likely to be treated as part of the surface estate unless specifically reserved.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court held that dinosaur fossils are not “minerals” under a general mineral reservation; ownership remains with the surface estate unless a deed expressly allocates fossils to the mineral estate.


Murray v. BEJ Mins., LLC, 464 P.3d 80 (Mont. 2020)