D.L. Bussard v. PA DCNR (State Board of Property)
516 C.D. 2021
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jun 10, 2022Background
- Property: 103.04-acre tract in Southampton Twp., Bedford County; competing title claims between private petitioners (Bussards) and the Commonwealth (DCNR/State Board of Property).
- Commonwealth chain: original Dicken warrant (1863); Commonwealth allegedly reacquired title in 1911 by conveyances from Hartsock et al.
- Bussards’ chain: deeds from McKinley Morris (purchased 1923) through successive conveyances to the Bussards; Morris obtained a Pennsylvania patent in 1937 (the Morris Patent) purporting to vest title in him.
- Procedural history: Board sustained preliminary objections and dismissed the Amended Petition with prejudice for failure to plead a complete chain of title back to the Dicken warrant and rejected the alternate claim limiting Commonwealth title to 39.4 acres.
- Commonwealth Court decision: vacated the Board’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, holding the Amended Petition and attachments (Morris Patent and a 1928 departmental letter) raised disputed factual issues requiring development and possibly a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Amended Petition re: chain of title / effect of 1937 Morris Patent | Morris Patent and attached 1928 letter furnish prima facie evidence and infer that Morris proved chain back to the Dicken warrant; pleading suffices to require factual response | When competing titles have different origins, challenger must trace title to origin; patent was ineffective because Commonwealth reacquired land in 1911; petition fails to trace to the warrant | Court: Patent and attachments raise factual issues; the pleading is sufficient to survive preliminary objections; remand for further pleadings and, if facts remain disputed, an evidentiary hearing |
| Alternate claim that only 39.4 acres are within the Dicken warrant | Survey/deed map shows only 39.4 acres are within the Dicken warrant, so portion outside warrant should proceed even if whole-property title is contested | Map is an inadequate basis to plead the claim in full; the petition cannot establish title to part of the property without more | Court: Alternate claim cannot be dismissed at preliminary stage; weight and admissibility of survey evidence are matters for the Board at hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffman v. Bell, 61 Pa. 444 (1869) (warrant conveys equitable title; patent perfects and confirms title)
- Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Dimock, 47 Pa. 393 (1864) (patent is a perfection/confirmation of warrant title)
- Jones v. Scranton Coal Co., 118 A. 219 (Pa. 1922) (memorandum or documentary evidence can supply preliminary proof of title)
- Consolidation Coal Co. v. Friedline, 3 A.2d 200 (Pa. Super. 1938) (a patent constitutes prima facie evidence of title)
- James v. Bream, 106 A. 722 (Pa. 1919) (plaintiff must prove title on strength of own title, not weakness of adversary)
- Keystone ReLeaf LLC v. Pa. Dep’t of Health, 186 A.3d 505 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (agency proceedings are not strictly bound by the rules of evidence)
- Hughes v. Dep’t of Env’t Res., 312 A.2d 819 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973) (factual weight is for the agency as finder of fact)