## Facts

- Early-1900s “broad form” mineral deeds in Kentucky conveyed coal/mineral rights using standardized language, at a time when coal was primarily extracted by underground mining.
- Later technological developments made surface (strip) mining feasible, but it often destroyed or substantially impaired the surface estate.
- Prior Kentucky decisions construed broad form deeds broadly enough to permit modern extraction methods, including surface mining, even if unknown when the deed was executed.
- Public opposition to those decisions led to adoption of Kentucky Constitution § 19(2), creating a presumption that mineral conveyances authorize only extraction methods known in the area at the time of execution, unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
- Surface owners sued to prevent mineral owners from using a broad form deed to conduct surface mining; the trial court held the deed did not authorize surface-destroying methods and ruled for the surface owners.
- While the appeal was pending, the constitutional amendment took effect; mineral owners challenged the amendment’s validity and its application to previously executed deeds.

## Issues

1. Whether Kentucky Constitution § 19(2) is valid and effective to govern judicial construction of broad form mineral deeds, including deeds executed before the amendment and despite prior judicial interpretations.
2. Whether, under § 19(2), a mineral owner may rely on a broad form deed alone to conduct surface (strip) mining when such methods were not known or contemplated at the time of the conveyance.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Kentucky upheld Kentucky Constitution § 19(2) as a valid constitutional amendment adopted by the people.
- The court held § 19(2) supersedes inconsistent prior doctrine governing construction of broad form deeds.
- Applying § 19(2), the court concluded the deed did not authorize surface mining absent clear and convincing evidence that the parties intended to permit later-developed, surface-destroying methods.
- The court affirmed the judgment for the surface owners, preventing strip mining under the deed as construed.

## Legal Principles

- A constitutional amendment adopted by the people may change the governing rules for judicial construction of property instruments and may displace conflicting prior judicial interpretations.
- Under Kentucky Constitution § 19(2), mineral conveyances are presumed to permit only extraction methods known in the area at the time of execution, unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence of a broader intent.
- A broad form deed does not, by its general grant of mineral rights alone, authorize surface-destroying strip mining when that method was not within the parties’ contemplation at execution.
- Applying § 19(2) to previously executed deeds operates as a constitutional rule of interpretation governing future adjudications, not an unconstitutional confiscation of vested rights.

## Conclusion

The Kentucky Supreme Court validated Kentucky Constitution § 19(2) and applied its clear-and-convincing-evidence standard to limit broad form mineral deeds to contemporaneously known extraction methods, thereby denying a claimed right to conduct strip mining based solely on such a deed.


Ward v. Harding, 860 S.W.2d 280 (Ky. 1993)