Butler v. Charles Powers Estate ex rel. Warren
620 Pa. 1
Pa.2013Background
- Appellants John and Mary Butler own 244 acres in Susquehanna County; deed (1881) reserved one-half of minerals and petroleum oils and related appurtenances; predecessors obtained title by deed from Charles Powers.
- Plaintiffs filed 2009 quiet-title action seeking fee-simple ownership and one-half of minerals beneath the land; Powers’ estate initially named as defendant.
- Trial court demurred, adopting Dunham rule that minerals do not include natural gas absent explicit inclusion or clear parol evidence; this favored Appellants.
- Superior Court reversed, remanding for evidentiary hearing to determine whether Marcellus shale gas is a mineral, whether Marcellus shale is a mineral, and whether shale ownership includes gas under Hoge II.
- Supreme Court granted allowance to decide if Dunham governs, and whether Marcellus shale gas can be treated as a mineral; Court reinstates trial court’s judgment, rejecting remand for scientific evidence.
- Concerning Hoge II, the Court distinguishes coalbed gas from Marcellus shale gas and holds Dunham remains controlling for private deed purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dunham Rule applies to private deed reservations here | Butlers rely on Dunham and Highland, need clear evidence to include gas | Appellees argue Marcellus shale gas is a mineral or appurtenance under Hoge II | Yes, Dunham applies; gas not included absent clear evidence |
| Whether Marcellus shale natural gas is a mineral under the deed reservation | Gas within shale not contemplated as mineral without explicit inclusion | Gas in shale could be the mineral subsumed by shale as a unit | No; Marcellus shale natural gas is not a mineral under Dunham |
| Impact of Hoge II on Dunham Rule in this case | Hoge II should apply to coalbed gas and control gas ownership | Hoge II is distinguishable; coalbed gas context does not apply | Hoge II inapplicable to Marcellus shale gas under Dunham |
| Whether remand for evidentiary science is proper | Remand unnecessary; Dunham requires historical intent evidence | Scientific evidence could inform intent about Marcellus shale gas | Remand improper; deny additional scientific evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson v. Tyson, 5 Watts 34 (Pa.1836) (common understanding governs mineral scope; metallic bias in lay view)
- Moore, 2 Whart. 477 (Pa.1837) (interpret contracts by common-language viewpoint of mass of mankind)
- Dunham v. 101 Pa. 36, 101 Pa. 36 (Pa.1882) (minerals customary meaning excludes oil and natural gas absent express inclusion)
- Silver v. Bush, 213 Pa. 195 (Pa.1906) (oil and gas not minerals absent express inclusion; Dunham rule applied)
- Preston v. S. Penn Oil Co., 238 Pa. 301 (Pa.1913) (confirms Dunham rule; oil and gas not included unless expressly stated)
- Bundy v. Myers, 372 Pa. 583 (Pa.1953) (reaffirms Dunham rule; expressio unius est exclusio alterius)
- Highland v. Commonwealth, 400 Pa. 261 (Pa.1960) (reaffirms rebuttable Dunham presumption; need clear and convincing evidence to include gas/oil)
- United States Steel Corp. v. Hoge, 503 Pa. 140 (Pa.1983) (coalbed gas ownership distinguished from general natural gas; Hoge II not overrule Dunham)