Ford, E. v. Oliver, J., 176 A.3d 891

Background

In 1996 Evan and Margaret Ford received two parcels (Parcel One: ~50 acres; Parcel Two: mineral rights) from their mother in a single deed.
In 2001 the Fords sold Parcel One to John Oliver at a closing where they signed a signature page without seeing a completed deed; they admit the signatures on the recorded deed are theirs.
The recorded 2001 deed to Oliver contained descriptions of both Parcel One and Parcel Two (mineral rights); an amended recording in 2009 added a “Parcel Two” heading. The Fords claim they never intended to convey Parcel Two and first learned of third‑party transfers of Parcel Two in 2015.
The Fords sued in 2015 seeking declaratory relief (void deed), malpractice, negligence, and fraud against Oliver, his counsel Puskaric, closing agents, and purchasers/lessees (EQT, Equitrans, Dale). Defendants filed preliminary objections asserting statutes of limitations and failure to state claims.
The trial court sustained preliminary objections and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice on statute‑of‑limitations and duty‑to‑investigate grounds. The Superior Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2001 deed was a forgery and therefore void ab initio (so no statute of limitations)	The deed was fraudulently altered to include Parcel Two; a forged/void deed has no limitations bar	The Fords signed the signature page; the deed is at most voidable for fraud, not void ab initio; statutes of limitations apply	Deed not forged/void ab initio; at best voidable; statutes of limitations apply
Whether the discovery rule tolled limitations until Fords learned in 2015	Fords did not discover the alleged conveyance until 2015; discovery rule should toll limitations	Fords exercised no reasonable diligence after signing and therefore discovery rule does not apply	Discovery rule did not save claims: as a matter of law Fords unreasonably delayed and should have discovered the deed earlier
Negligence claim vs. EQT and Equitrans for failing to investigate chain of title	EQT/Equitrans should have discovered the defect and cannot rely on Oliver’s title	EQT/Equitrans owed no duty to the Fords to investigate title; claim fails as a matter of law	Dismissed: no recognized duty exists here; negligence claim fails
Whether amendment/recoding in 2009 created a separate actionable fraud or forgery	Re‑recording with “Parcel Two” typed in was fraudulent and void	Any alleged fraud in 2009 is derivative of a voidable 2001 deed and is time‑barred; also Fords had notice or could have discovered earlier	2009 re‑recording does not render deed void ab initio; related claims are untimely or fail for lack of duty

Key Cases Cited

Khawaja v. RE/MAX Cent., 151 A.3d 626 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for reviewing preliminary objections)
Wagner v. Apollo Gas Co., 582 A.2d 364 (Pa. Super. 1990) (declaratory judgment governed by four‑year limitations statute)
Dalrymple v. Brown, 701 A.2d 164 (Pa. 1997) (limitations run when right to sue accrues; lack of knowledge does not toll)
Yohe v. Yohe, 353 A.2d 417 (Pa. 1976) (party who signs a deed without reading it is guilty of supine negligence)
Mariner Chestnut Partners, L.P. v. Lenfest, 152 A.3d 265 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discovery rule ordinarily a jury question unless reasonable minds would not differ)
Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) (application of discovery rule principles)
Toy v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 863 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2004) (fraud actions governed by two‑year limitations)
Thees v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 190 A. 895 (Pa. 1937) (recorded forged instruments may be cancelled but forgery requires fraudulent making or altering)
Alderwoods (Pennsylvania), Inc. v. Duquesne Light Co., 106 A.3d 27 (Pa. 2014) (creation of new negligence duties is judicial policymaking)
Seebold v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 57 A.3d 1232 (Pa. 2012) (factors for recognizing new affirmative duties)