S. O'Layer McCready v. PA Tpk. Commission, S. O'Layer McCready v. PA Tpk. Commission

In 1990 Sarah McCready conveyed a portion of her Beaver County property to the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission by a deed in lieu of condemnation; the deed recited a transfer of “all the estate, right, title, interests…whatsoever.”
McCready later filed a 2012 quiet-title action seeking declaration that she retained the mineral estate beneath the conveyed parcel, alleging she intended to convey only surface rights and that the Commission paid only surface value.
The Commission contended the deed was unambiguous and conveyed fee simple title, including minerals, and that it had authority to acquire such interests for turnpike purposes.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, received expert testimony regarding drilling technology, highway operation needs, and whether mineral ownership was necessary for safe turnpike operation.
The trial court concluded the deed was unambiguous and conveyed fee simple including mineral rights and that taking fee simple was a proper exercise of the Commission’s discretion; it granted the Commission’s summary judgment and dismissed McCready’s complaint.
On appeal the Commonwealth Court vacated and remanded, holding the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a quiet-title dispute between a private party and the Commonwealth instrumentality and must transfer the record to the Board of Property.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 1990 deed conveyed the mineral estate	Deed was executed in lieu of condemnation and McCready intended to convey only surface rights; consideration reflected surface value	Deed language is unambiguous and conveys “all…interests…whatsoever,” including minerals	Trial court found deed unambiguous conveying fee simple; appellate remedy focused on jurisdiction (transfer to Board)
Whether the Turnpike Commission had authority to acquire fee simple (including minerals)	Commission not authorized to take more than necessary by eminent domain; acquiring minerals exceeded necessity	Commission authority permits acquiring lands, interests, rights-of-way and other property necessary or convenient for turnpike construction and operation	Trial court held acquisition in fee simple was within Commission discretion as necessary/convenient; appellate opinion did not reach merits due to jurisdictional defect
Proper forum for quiet-title action against a Commonwealth instrumentality	McCready brought action in county court seeking quiet title	Commission argued matters involving title where Commonwealth claims an interest fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board of Property	Commonwealth Court held the Board of Property has exclusive jurisdiction; trial court must transfer the record to the Board under 42 Pa.C.S. §5103(a)

Delaware Avenue, LLC v. Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Resources, 997 A.2d 1231 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (Board of Property has exclusive jurisdiction over title disputes involving the Commonwealth)
International Dev. Corp. v. Davidge, 26 A.3d 1234 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (quiet-title actions against the Commonwealth fall within Board of Property jurisdiction)
Kister v. Pa. Fish Comm’n, 465 A.2d 1333 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (Board of Property’s exclusive jurisdiction over title disputes involving the Commonwealth)
McCullough v. Dep’t of Transp., 541 A.2d 430 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (Board jurisdiction applies even where Commonwealth acquired interest by condemnation)
Miller v. Board of Property, 533 A.2d 819 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (same)
Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm’n v. Lichtenstein, 534 A.2d 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (procedures and forum distinctions for claims involving the Turnpike Commission)
Mazur v. Trinity Area Sch. Dist., 961 A.2d 96 (Pa. 2008) (subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewable de novo)
Mase v. Commonwealth, 407 A.2d 1368 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (Board had exclusive jurisdiction in declaratory action about extraction rights on Commonwealth land)