204 A.3d 1009
Pa. Commw. Ct.2019Background
- McCready owned a 28.527-acre parcel conveyed in 1990 to the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission by deed in lieu of condemnation for $50,000. The deed recited transfer of "all the estate, right, title, interests, property, claim and demand whatsoever" with no reservation of minerals.
- In 2012 McCready sued to quiet title to the mineral estate, alleging she intended to convey only surface rights and that the Commission was not authorized/required to acquire minerals.
- The Commission maintained the deed was unambiguous and conveyed fee simple title (including minerals); it also argued fee simple acquisition was within its statutory authority and discretion.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing; witnesses gave conflicting testimony about whether subsurface rights were necessary or customary for highway construction in 1990.
- This Court previously found the State Board of Property (Board) — not the trial court — was the proper forum; the matter was transferred to the Board, which denied McCready’s claims, granted the Commission summary judgment, and dismissed the quiet-title action.
- On appeal the Commonwealth Court affirmed: the deed language was unambiguous and conveyed the minerals, and the Commission’s purchase of a fee simple estate was within its authority and not shown to be an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the deed conveyed mineral rights | McCready: deed was intended to transfer only surface rights; parol evidence can show intent | Commission: deed is written, unambiguous, conveys all interests including minerals; parol evidence inadmissible | Deed unambiguous; conveys fee simple including minerals; parol evidence excluded |
| Whether Commission had authority to acquire fee simple mineral interests | McCready: Commission couldn’t condemn/purchase minerals not necessary for turnpike; acquiring them was excessive | Commission: statutes authorize purchase of "lands, interests" as necessary or convenient; taking fee simple was within discretion | Commission had statutory authority; taking fee simple not shown to be excessive |
| Burden to show abuse of discretion in condemnor’s choice of estate | McCready: Board should resolve factual conflicts in her favor as non-movant | Commission: objector bears heavy burden to show fraud, bad faith, or abuse of discretion | Objector (McCready) bears heavy burden; no fraud/bad faith/abuse shown |
| Adequacy of compensation paid in 1990 | McCready: payment ($50,000) reflected only surface value and was inadequate for minerals | Commission: no credible evidence presented proving inadequacy; presumption of proper action | No evidence of inadequate compensation; court will not disturb Board’s finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania Electric Co. v. Waltman, 670 A.2d 1165 (Pa. Super. 1995) (unambiguous deed language controls; parol evidence inadmissible to vary deed)
- Ralston v. Ralston, 55 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2012) (distinguishing exceptions vs. reservations; language retaining existing interests constitutes an exception)
- In re Condemnation of Property of Waite, 641 A.2d 25 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (objector bears heavy burden to show condemnor abused discretion; review limited to fraud, bad faith, or abuse)
- Department of Transportation v. Brown, 576 A.2d 75 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (factfinder may accept or reject witness testimony; substantial evidence standard)
- Fuller v. Lehigh–Northampton Airport Auth., 172 A.3d 1166 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (property owner must prove fair market value at time of taking to upset compensation)