Herder Spring Hunting Club v. Keller
| Decision Date | 19 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 5 MAP 2015,5 MAP 2015 |
| Citation | 143 A.3d 358 |
| Parties | HERDER SPRING HUNTING CLUB, Appellee, v. Harry KELLER and Anna Keller, his Wife; J. Orvis Keller; Ellis O. Keller; Henry Harry Keller ; William H. Keller ; Mary Egolf; John Keller; Harry Keller ; Anna Bullock ; Allen Egolf; Martin Egolf; Mary Lynn Cox; Robert Egolf ; Nathan Egolf; Robert S. Keller; Betty Bunnell; Ann K. Butler; Marguerite Tose; Henry Parker Keller; Penny Archibald; Heidi Sue Hutchison; Rebecca Smith; Alexandra Niles Calabrese; Corrine Graham Fisherman; Jennifer Layton Manrique; David Keller; Stephen Richard Keller; Michael Egolf, their Heirs, Successors, Executors, Administrators, and assigns, as well as any other person, party or entity, Appellants. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Robert Lee Hicks Jr., Andew Lee Noble, David Glenn Oberdick, Meyer, Unkovic & Scott, L.L.P., Pittsburgh, Brian Keith Marshall, Campbell, Miller, Williams, Benson, Etter & Consiglio, Inc., State College, Laurinda Jo Voelcker, Remit Corp., for Harry Keller and Anna Keller, et al., Appellants.
David Charles Mason, Mason Law Office, for Herder Spring Hunting Club, Philipsburg, Appellee.
Mark Carlyle Baldwin, Pa. Dept. of Conservation & Nat. Resources (DCNR), for Pa. Dept. of Conservation & Nat. Resources, Amicus Curiae.
Robert L. Byer, Duane Morris LLP, Pittsburgh, for Trustees of the Thomas E. Proctor Heirs Trust, Amicus Curiae.
Jeffrey J. Malak, Chariton, Schwager & Malak, for SWN Production Co., LLC, Willkes Barre, Amicus Curiae.
Andrew Duncan Sims, Harris Finley & Bogle PC, Ft. Worth, TX, for Range Resources–Appalachia, LLC, Amicus Curiae.
Paul Keidel Stockman, McGuireWoods LLP, for Hoyt Realty, LLC, Thorne Heritage Resources, LLC, Trustees of the Margaret O.F. Proctor Trust, Trustees of the Thomas E. Proctor Heirs Trust, Pittsburgh, Amicus Curiae.
David R. Overstreet, for Seneca Resources Corp., Pittsburgh, Amicus Curiae.
OPINION
.1
This case concerns the ownership of subsurface rights to a tract of land in Centre County. The parties' claims rise or fall based upon whether a 1935 tax sale resulted in the transfer of the entire property or merely the surface rights. After extensive review of the historical law regarding tax sales of unseated land in Pennsylvania, we conclude that the tax sale related to the entire property at issue, including both the surface and subsurface estates.2 Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court's order vacating the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellants and remanding to the trial court for the grant of summary judgment to the Appellee.
The facts of this case are largely undisputed. The property at issue is the Eleanor Siddons Warrant, located in Rush Township, Centre County. The warrant was issued in 1793 as containing 460 acres, strict measure, and was assessed as 433 acres, 153 perches after taking into account roads and waterways.3 As relevant to the dispute in this case, Appellants' ancestors, Harry and Anna Keller, bought the Eleanor Siddons Warrant at a tax sale in 1894. In 1899, the Kellers sold the surface rights to Isaac Beck, Isaiah Beck, and James Fisher (Becks), reserving the subsurface rights to themselves through an extensive reservation that indisputably covered the natural gas at issue herein.4
There is no evidence in the record that the Becks complied with the Act of 1806, discussed further infra, which required anyone becoming a holder of unseated land to provide notice to the county commissioners of the transfer of ownership. Moreover, the record contains no evidence that the Kellers informed the commissioners of their reservation of rights. As discussed below, the Kellers were not required to report their reservation of rights under the reporting requirements of the Act of 1806. The lack of reporting, however, is relevant to this case because the county commissioners were tasked with assessing unseated property for taxation purposes based on what was reported by the owners.
Following transfers not relevant to the issues in the case at bar, Ralph Smith acquired the surface rights to the Eleanor Siddons Warrant in 1922. Thereafter, the Centre County Commissioners acquired the property via a treasurer's sale in November 1935 as a result of unpaid taxes and the lack of a bidder offering the upset price at a public tax sale. Documenting the November 1935 sale from the Centre County Treasurer to the County Commissioners is a deed dated June 1936 using sparse language dictated by Section 9 of the Act of 1815, as set forth at 72 P.S. § 6136
, describing the property as “a tract of unseated land containing 433–153 per acres situate in the Rush Twp. in the County of Centre, surveyed to Ralph Smith.” Deed of June 10, 1936, R.R. at 65a.
Following the tax sale, the Commissioners held the property, in accordance with statute, until 1941 when the land was sold to Max Herr. The 1941 Deed memorialized the details of the 1935 tax sale:
Whereas, the Treasurer of Centre County, having given due and public notice of the time and place of sale of the hereinafter mentioned tract of land, did on the 29th day of November, 1935, expose the same to public sale for nonpayment of taxes and no person bidding, therefore, a sum equal to the amount of taxes due and costs of sale, it, therefore, became the duty of the Commissioners of Centre County to buy the same, which they accordingly did.
Deed of June 3, 1941, R.R. at 64a. The 1941 Deed further recounted that the sale occurred “according to the form of the several Acts of Assembly providing the mode of selling Unseated lands for taxes” and described the property as follows:
a certain tract of Unseated land in Rush Township, in said County of Centre, bounded and described as follows: in the Warrantee name of Eleanor Siddon[s] containing 433 acres and 153 perches; of which land the former owner or reputed owner was Ralph Smith, and the said tract of land hath remained unredeemed for the period designated by law.
Id. As will be evaluated after discussion of the relevant law, the critical question in this case is whether the 1935 and 1941 sales involved the entire Eleanor Siddons Warrant or merely the surface rights.
In 1959, Appellee Herder Spring Hunting Club (Herder Spring) purchased the property from Herr's widow. During the title search, Herder Spring's attorney became aware of the Kellers' prior subsurface reservation and suggested that language be added to the deed to reflect the reservation. The deed, describing the property again as the “Eleanor Siddons [W]arrant,” generically provided, “[t]his conveyance is subject to all exceptions and reservations as are contained in the chain of title,” without specifying the Keller reservation. Deed of Nov. 13, 1959, R.R. at 26a.
Since 1959, Herder Spring has entered into several oil and gas leases, which were recorded with the Centre County Recorder of Deeds. In contrast, Herder Spring observes that, since the 1899 reservation, the Keller family has never referenced ownership of the subsurface rights through any document, such as an inventory filed in connection with an estate or divorce.
In August 2008, Herder Spring filed a complaint to quiet title, presumably as a result of the discovery of Marcellus Shale on the property. Herder Spring asserted that the 1935 tax sale extinguished the Kellers' 1899 reservation of subsurface rights. The basis of the argument is that because the County Commissioners had not been alerted to the Kellers' reservation of rights, the taxes were assessed against the entire Eleanor Siddons Warrant, and the sale of the property for delinquent taxes resulted in a sale of both the surface and subsurface rights. The tax sale of the fee simple estate, according to Herder Spring, extinguished any prior reserved estates in concurrence with the longstanding policy of “title-washing.”5 In furtherance of its argument, Herder Spring observed that the deed from the Centre County Commissioners to Herr did not reference only the “surface estate” but rather the “Eleanor Siddons Warrant.”6
Both Herder Spring and Appellants, the heirs of the Kellers (Keller Heirs) filed motions for summary judgment, which form the basis of the issues before this Court. The Keller Heirs maintained their claim that the 1935 tax sale resulted only in the transfer of the surface rights to the Eleanor Siddons Warrant, despite acknowledging that “Centre County did not separately assess the Property's oil and gas interests prior to the Tax Sale of 1935.” Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment at 4. They asserted that Herder Spring's claim “fails as a matter of law because (1) only subsurface rights under operation and production have value which is assessable and taxable, and (2) only assessed property can be acquired by a tax sale purchaser.” Keller's Answer to Herder Spring's Motion for Summary Judgment at 3, R.R. at 146. They emphasized that in a quiet title action, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, here Herder Spring, to demonstrate reason to quiet title based upon the strength of their own title.
The Keller Heirs further invoked the doctrine of estoppel by deed based upon the 1959 Deed to Herder Spring, which contains an acknowledgement that the “conveyance is subject to all exceptions and reservations as are contained in the chain of title.” They contend that this statement reinvigorates the Keller's 1899 reservation of subsurface rights, as suggested by letters between the attorneys negotiating the 1959 transfer. They observe that this Court has held that “one claiming under a deed is bound by any recognition it contains of the title in another.” Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment at 6 (quoting Elliott v. Moffett, 365 Pa. 247, 74 A.2d, 164, 167 (1950)
).
In turn, Herder Spring filed a motion for summary judgment. Herder Spring, inter alia, contended that the 1935...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Thomas E. Proctor Heirs Trust
...estates, thereby giving good title to the entire warrant to McCauley, the tax-sale purchaser. According to the Game Commission, Herder Spring's endorsement of the title-wash phenomenon squarely answers the ownership claims in this case. The Game Commission contends that because the warrant ......
-
Pennsylvania v. Thomas E. Proctor Heirs Tr., CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-1567
...estates, thereby giving good title to the entire warrant to McCauley, the tax-sale purchaser. According to the Game Commission, Herder Spring's endorsement of the title-wash phenomenon squarely answers the ownership claims in this case. The Game Commission contends that because the warrant ......
-
Cornwall Mountain Invs., L.P. v. Thomas E. Proctor Heirs Trust
...opportunity to file supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Herder Spring Hunting Club v. Keller , 143 A.3d 358, 372 (Pa. 2016), on the instant appeal. At issue therein was whether a 1935 tax sale of unseated land conveyed only the surface es......
-
Pennsylvania v. Thomas E. Proctor Heirs Tr.
...Spring, 143 A.3d at 363-64. Although unseated land was considered “wild, ” it could still be “severed into surface and subsurface estates.” Id. at 364 omitted). Pennsylvania distinguished between seated and unseated land for tax-collection purposes. See id. at 363. County land assessors det......