Suit Filed against Bonne Terre Mine / West End

[jseyfert3]

Ohhhh. The lease ended, West End stopped paying. Eventually, Doe Run sued to evict them, in 2019. West End filed a counterclaim claiming ownership due to Adverse Possession.

So it was non-payment of rent after all. It just took Doe Run 13 years before they decided to evict. Or maybe they were smart, and waited 13 years on purpose, so that any claim of broken contract for sale would have lapsed in the 10 year statute of limitations.

And yes, Missouri has holdover tenancy, which means if the lease expires, and you continue to pay, and the lessor continues to accept payment, then you continue to have a legally-binding lease agreement. So either West End didn't pay, or they tried to but Doe Run refused to accept lease payments.

I really wish I could access the 2019 court documents...

 

[jseyfert3]

Ah, found it. This is the link to the case in question, containing all sorts of documents that can be viewed.

The actual judgement did not become final until Jan 8th, 2025, and the writ to evict West End from the mine did not get issued until January 29th, 2025. This explains why the closure was public only a few days ago, since that's when the eviction was actually done.

2019: Start of case, with Doe Run filing for eviction for non-payment of rent.
2025: West End is evicted from the mine premises from the court proceedings that started in 2019.

They are appealing, but they have been evicted, and though I'm not a lawyer, it really seems like this appeal isn't going to go anywhere. And in the meantime, unlike the prior 6 years, they no longer have access to the premises.

 

[jseyfert3]

This gets more interesting! In an objection to being removed, West End stated that Doe Run doesn't own the surface property, and that the surface property rights include the pore rights below it (open areas, e.g. the mine). So Doe Run can't block them from accessing a location they don't own, and referenced a case that the owner of the surface rights has against Doe Run.

West End put into evidence an exhibit which is the claims from the surface owner (Sadew III LLC) in the case against Doe Run. Basically, Sadew III says that Doe Run only has mineral rights, and during Doe Run vs West End, that Doe Run said the area is unminable and an asset. They are claiming that because there is no minerals left to extract, the court should declare the mineral rights to Doe Run are terminated and any interest in the property is divested from Doe Run.

This may be why the sale fell through. Doe Run couldn't actually sell the mine, because they don't own the mine. They only own the mineral rights below the surface.

And of particular note in that exhibit (Sadew III LLC vs Doe Run), Sadew III says (emphasis mine):

Doe Run's threats to engage the Sheriff of St. Fancois County in precluding activities on Plaintiff's property in cause no. 19 SF AC01337 suggest that Plaintiff may not freely use the pore space under the property for diving operations or any other activity not inconsistent with Doe Run's mineral rights.

I'm not sure if that means the surface owner is going to try to do their own diving operations, or continue to rent to West End, or if they are just stating that as a way to revoke the mineral rights to Doe Run.

 

[jseyfert3]

Oh, fascinating! Sadew III LLC, along with Sadew II, LLC, Sadew V, LLC, and Sadew IX, LLC, owns the surface property and improvements inside the mine. Such as high pressure air compressors, lights, sewer, plumbing, air storage tanks. In other words, the owners of the surface land, and all the equipment inside the mine that makes it a dive place. There is a temporary restraining order against Doe Run now to allow access of Sadew to the premises to prevent equipment damage. In short, to "maintain the status quo".

So it looks like somebody was smart, and the companies that own the equipment for the diving operations was not the company that ran the dive operations.

 

[jseyfert3]

Last post for right now on this, then I have to do something else.

I don't recall seeing the current lease, but the lease signed in 1976 was presented as evidence. I'm guessing Doe Run took over the same lease in 1987? Anyway, if the lease was taken over as written:

• The lease payments were 10% of gross admission receipts, paid monthly, with a $500 minimum.
• The lessee assumes all risk and liability.
• The lessee shall carry general public liability insurance naming both the lessee and lessor as insured, with minimum limits.
• The lessee shall comply with the Mine Inspection Laws of Missouri, and take all action, whether or not specifically required in the lease, to protect lessee's customers, invitees, visitors, and licensees from injury while upon the premises.
• The Lessee shall not permit its customers, invitees, visitors or licensees to enter the underground or mine area except when accompanied by a guide employed by the Lessee.
• The lease was for 10 years from May 1976 to May 1986, with the right to renew under the same terms and conditions for another 10 years, but not more than two such renewals or extensions.
  • So this may explain why in 2006 and leading up to it there was negotiations on purchase. The lease would not be able to be renewed without being re-written.

I bolded the above part, because one of the things I see a number of people here dislike is that you have to have a guide with you. This was required under the terms of the lease! There was no (legal) option for them to let you go dive on your own.

The last thought I have is West End argued for ownership of the mine itself from Adverse Possession. It seems this may have been their plan overall, as they ceased rent payments in 2006. A counter-argument to that by Doe Run was that West End continued to purchase liability insurance naming Doe Run and sending this proof to Doe Run. Doe Run argued that by accepting this insurance, it created a holdover tenancy, the same way accepting money would, and so adverse possession didn't apply.

I believe I read that West End was paying property taxes for the mine during this time, which is a required aspect of Adverse Possession. And since the lease did outline that the Lessor would pay property taxes on the mine, with the exception of any increased assessments due to improvements made by the lessee, if West End was paying the property taxes the whole time, while not paying rent, that does seem to indicate that they decided to obtain the mine by Adverse Possession instead of purchasing it, and may explain why the sale never happened.

If so, seems like a bad choice to roll the dice on Adverse Possession for ~$60,000 ($94k in today's dollars), even if the sale did allow Doe Run to maintain rights to future minerals as Doe Run originally proposed in the sale terms. West Bend got $1.6 million in admission prices from Jan 2022 to Aug 2024. That works out to something like $68k per year in lease payments during that timeframe, so it seems like buying the mine would have really been in their best interest.

 

[jseyfert3]

Current status:

Doe Run vs West End ended with the West End being evicted from the mine.

In the Sadew III vs Doe Run case, the next scheduled event is a Trial Setting on March 7th. The current status is Sadew III was granted a TRO to access the mine only for the purpose of maintaining equipment, but it specifically says nothing in the order shall prohibit the Sheriff from restoring Doe Run to possession of the mine except as outlined above. So they can access to maintain equipment, but not run a dive operation.

If it wasn't clear, the owners of West End and Sadew III are the same people.

 

[bl6394]

Current status:

Doe Run vs West End ended with the West End being evicted from the mine.

In the Sadew III vs Doe Run case, the next scheduled event is a Trial Setting on March 7th. The current status is Sadew III was granted a TRO to access the mine only for the purpose of maintaining equipment, but it specifically says nothing in the order shall prohibit the Sheriff from restoring Doe Run to possession of the mine except as outlined above. So they can access to maintain equipment, but not run a dive operation.

If it wasn't clear, the owners of West End and Sadew III are the same people.

Interesting strategy with all the LLC's He's got 13 of them with a similar name that he formed in 2011... Not counting the other entities associated with the Mine. e.g. West End Diving, American Academy of Underwater Education, etc.

https://bsd.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/BESearch.aspx?SearchType=0. Search by registered agent "Doug Goergens"

 

[Whitrzac]

All this drama over $70k.

I know a handfull of people that would drop that amount of cash to buy it outright.