Bastian, E. v. Sullivan, M.
117 A.3d 338
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Original owner Henry Wolz conveyed three parcels (JTWROS to his children) in 1951; later portions of the surface estate were conveyed to third parties with repeated "excepting and reserving" language for oil, gas, and minerals (OGMs).
- Carlton Wolz and Eva Wolz Hunt held subsurface rights as joint tenants with right of survivorship (JTWROS); Carlton died in 1959, Eva died in 1985.
- Bastian is heir of Eva and claimed the entire subsurface estate; appellants are heirs of Marguerite Wolz and claimed 50% of the subsurface estate.
- Appellants leased a claimed half-interest to Anadarko (2006); Bastian leased 100% to Victory (2011).
- Bastian sued for declaratory judgment/quiet title (2013); trial court granted summary judgment to Bastian (May 21, 2014), declaring her sole owner of the subsurface estate; appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bastian) | Defendant's Argument (Appellants) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absence of lessees (Victory, Anadarko) deprived court of jurisdiction as indispensable parties | Lessees have no independent title interest; their rights derive from the parties before the court | Lessees are indispensable because judgment would void or reduce their leases | Lessees not indispensable; court had jurisdiction because resolution can be made without impairing absent parties’ rights |
| Whether conveyances of surface estate (Sykora, Menken, Wolz deeds) severed the JTWROS of Carlton and Eva | JTWROS was not severed; intent and exception language preserved subsurface survivorship | Inclusion of spouses as grantors and subsequent deeds severed at least three unities, creating tenancy in common | JTWROS not severed; deeds showed no intent to terminate survivorship; surface transfers did not affect subsurface JTWROS |
| Whether the "excepting and reserving" clauses created reservations (which would lapse at grantor death) or exceptions (which preserve grantor title and survivorship) | Clauses created exceptions of existing corporeal OGMs, preserving JTWROS and survivorship | Clauses lack express survivorship provision and thus operate as reservations severing survivorship | Clauses are exceptions (OGMs are corporeal and preexisting), retaining the JTWROS character and survivorship in favor of Bastian |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Bastian: undisputed facts establish she holds entire subsurface estate as matter of law | Appellants: factual and legal disputes (severance, indispensability) preclude summary judgment | Summary judgment affirmed for Bastian; no genuine issue of material fact on title/severance issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Sabella v. Appalachian Dev. Corp., 103 A.3d 83 (Pa. Super. 2014) (indispensable-party failure cannot be waived)
- Mazur v. Trinity Area School District, 961 A.2d 96 (Pa. 2008) (de novo review for jurisdictional legal questions)
- Sprague v. Casey, 550 A.2d 184 (Pa. 1988) (absence of indispensable parties affects court's jurisdiction; court may proceed if absent party's rights are not impaired)
- Mechanicsburg Area School District v. Kline, 431 A.2d 953 (Pa. 1981) (framework for determining indispensability: related interest, nature, essentiality, due process)
- Ralston v. Ralston, 55 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2012) (distinguishing exceptions vs. reservations; corporeal minerals create exceptions)
- Pennsylvania Services Corp. v. Texas E. Transmission, LP, 98 A.3d 624 (Pa. Super. 2014) (recognizing separable surface and subsurface estates)
- In re Estate of Quick, 905 A.2d 471 (Pa. 2006) (creation and severance of JTWROS; four unities and required manifestation for voluntary severance)