## Facts

- North American Coal Corporation operated a coal mine adjacent to the tract at issue in Mercer County, North Dakota.
- Ownership of the surface and coal estates was fragmented among multiple holders, including life estates and remainder interests.
- A life tenant held the surface estate for life, with remainder interests divided among twelve persons, including Mark Huber (a minor) with a small fractional remainder interest.
- Coal ownership was also divided: some coal interests were owned outright by third parties, and the remaining coal was subject to a life estate with remainder interests divided among the same group of remaindermen.
- North American obtained leases from certain coal-interest holders, and all remaindermen except Mark Huber ratified the leases as to both surface and coal interests.
- Mark Huber did not ratify the leases and remained a nonconsenting remainderman in both the surface and a portion of the coal estate.
- North American sought a court order authorizing surface use for mining under North Dakota’s Surface Owner Protection Act, based on stipulated facts.

## Issues

1. Whether a coal company that has acquired only some, but not all, coal interests qualifies as a “mineral developer” eligible to obtain a court order authorizing surface use under the Surface Owner Protection Act.
2. Whether the Act applies where mineral ownership is fragmented and at least one mineral/surface interest holder has not consented.
3. Whether constitutional concerns should affect interpretation of the Act’s scope (raised indirectly but not decided).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed dismissal of North American’s action.
- The court held the Surface Owner Protection Act applies only when the developer has acquired all right, title, and interest in the minerals (by lease or ownership).
- Because Mark Huber retained an unleased remainder interest in part of the coal estate, North American had not acquired all mineral interests and could not proceed under the Act.
- The court did not reach the Act’s constitutionality, concluding the case on statutory interpretation grounds.

## Legal Principles

- A party may invoke the Surface Owner Protection Act’s judicial procedure for authorizing surface use only if it has acquired the entire mineral interest in the tract, not merely fractional or partial mineral rights.
- Statutory references to acquisition of “the mineral rights” were construed to mean the whole mineral estate relevant to the proposed mining, not a subset.
- Legislative history supported a surface-owner-protective construction and did not support reading the Act as creating forced pooling or a condemnation-like mechanism for partial mineral holders.
- Courts should prefer reasonable statutory constructions that avoid serious constitutional questions, including concerns related to the statute’s title scope and takings-like effects.

## Conclusion

The court limited the Surface Owner Protection Act to situations where a coal developer has obtained all mineral interests in the property, and it refused to authorize surface use for mining when a nonconsenting remainderman retained a fractional mineral and surface interest.


North American Coal Corp. v. Huber, 268 N.W.2d 593 (N.D. 1978)