Sisson, D. & M. v. Stanley, J.
109 A.3d 265
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- In 1953 Joseph M. Stanley conveyed a 98.5-acre Susquehanna County parcel subject to a reservation of “all of the oil and gas underlying the [Property].” That reservation remained in the chain when Pauline Battista conveyed the property to Donald and Mary Sisson in 1986.
- The Sissons sought a Marcellus Shale gas lease and filed a quiet title action (April 27, 2010) naming Stanley, his heirs, successors, assigns, etc., and moved for service by publication under Pa.R.C.P. 430(a) with a short affidavit describing limited search efforts.
- The court permitted publication; no one initially appeared; final judgment entered against the named defendants. Rita Stanley Lupoid (claiming to be a surviving sibling/heir) later petitioned to open the judgment, alleging improper service.
- The trial court opened the judgment, found the Sissons’ Rule 430(a) affidavit inadequate, and permitted Lupoid to defend. After pleadings, Lupoid moved for judgment on the pleadings; the trial court granted it (June 28, 2013). The Sissons appealed.
- On appeal the Superior Court majority affirmed: (1) the Rule 430(a) affidavit was facially insufficient (insufficient diligence to locate heirs; failed to check probates/obituaries/meaningful internet or local records), so service by publication was invalid; and (2) as a matter of law the 1953 reservation of “all of the oil and gas” includes Marcellus Shale gas, so Lupoid (heirs) own gas rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sissons) | Defendant's Argument (Lupoid/Heirs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Rule 430(a) affidavit for service by publication | Affidavit and local publication were sufficient; trial court properly allowed service | Affidavit was deficient and court lacked jurisdiction because heirs were not located/not served | Held: Affidavit facially insufficient; search lacked due diligence (no probate/obituary/meaningful internet/voter/DMV checks); service by publication invalid |
| Whether judgment could be opened after publication service | Once court approved publication, judgment should stand; reopening undermines finality | Petition to open valid because service was defective and personal jurisdiction lacking | Held: Court properly opened judgment because lack of valid service deprives court of jurisdiction (Deer Park rationale) |
| Whether reservation of "all of the oil and gas" in 1953 deed includes Marcellus Shale gas | Reservation language is ambiguous as to modern shale extraction; intent at 1953 may not have encompassed shale gas | Language expressly reserves "gas" so it includes natural gas trapped in shale; Dunham rule inapplicable where "gas" is expressly reserved | Held: As a matter of law the plain term "gas" covers Marcellus Shale gas; judgment on the pleadings for heirs affirmed |
| Applicability of Dunham/Hoge rules to shale gas reservation | Dunham/Hoge support limitation where parties could not have intended to reserve substances not known/valuable then | Dunham presumption inapplicable because deed says "gas"; Hoge distinguished (coalbed gas unique) | Held: Dunham inapplicable to an express reservation of "gas"; Hoge distinguished and not controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Deer Park Lumber, Inc. v. Major, 559 A.2d 941 (Pa. Super. 1989) (Rule 430 affidavit must evidence meaningful, good-faith search before service by publication)
- Fusco v. Hill Fin. Sav. Ass'n, 683 A.2d 677 (Pa. Super. 1996) (service by publication is extraordinary; counsel cannot ignore known interested parties)
- PNC Bank, N.A. v. Unknown Heirs, 929 A.2d 219 (Pa. Super. 2007) (due process requires notice; publication improper when identity/location of heirs is known)
- Butler v. Powers Estate ex rel. Warren, 65 A.3d 885 (Pa. 2013) (Dunham rule: reservation of "minerals" presumptively excludes oil/gas unless clear and convincing evidence of intent)
- Highland v. Commonwealth, 161 A.2d 390 (Pa. 1960) (deed construction principles: give effect to instrument language, subject matter, and circumstances)
- United States Steel Corp. v. Hoge, 468 A.2d 1380 (Pa. 1983) (coalbed gas ownership analysis; distinguishable because of coalbed gas characteristics)
- Consolidation Coal Co. v. White, 875 A.2d 318 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for judgment on the pleadings)