*1 344 materialize, in- Pennsylvania did
affirmative defenses self-defense.”) (discussing the affirmative defense of cluding York, 197, 2319, 53 Patterson New 432 U.S. 97 S.Ct. v. Ohio, (1977), L.Ed.2d 281 and Martin v. U.S. (1987)). principle L.Ed.2d 267 “The overall S.Ct. emerges High decisional law that federal Court’s on the process permits place due States burden defendant prove preponderance an affirmative defense evidence, thereby required so as the defendant is long an 53 A.3d at negate element offense.” 743. Thus, justifi- if Assembly to revisit the General determines cation, not, may focusing the castle doctrine or whether affirmatively underlying address issue burden broader effectively recognized our proof now Mouzon may erroneously govern- have decisional law recalibrated in the ing principles reflected Crimes Code. A.3d CLUB, Appellee,
HERDER SPRING HUNTING Wife; Keller; Keller, Harry KELLER Anna his J. Ellis Orvis Keller; Henry Harry Keller; Keller; Mary Egolf; H. O. William Keller; Bullock; Keller; Harry Egolf; John Anna Allen Mar Egolf; Egolf; Mary Lynn Cox; Egolf; tin Robert Nathan Keller; Betty Bunnell; Butler; Marguerite Robert Ann K. S. Tose; Keller; Penny Archibald; Henry Heidi Parker Sue Smith; Calabrese; Hutchison; Cor Rebecca Alexandra Niles Fisherman; Layton Manrique; rine David Graham Jennifer Keller; Heirs, Stephen Keller; Egolf, Richard their Michael Executors, Administrators, Successors, assigns, well as any party entity, Appellants. person, other Pennsylvania.
Supreme Court of Argued 2015. Oct. 20, 2016. Jan. Submitted July Decided *3 Noble, Jr., David Glenn Lee Hicks Andew Lee Robert Scott, L.L.P., Pittsburgh, Brian Oberdick, Meyer, Unkovic & Benson, Marshall, Miller, Williams, Etter & Campbell, Keith Voelcker, Remit Inc., Jo Consiglio, College, Laurinda State al., Keller, Appellants. Anna et Corp., Harry for Keller and Mason, Office, Spring for Herder Mason Law David Charles Club, Hunting Philipsburg, Appellee. & Nat. Baldwin, Carlyle Dept, Conservation
Mark Nat. & (DCNR), Dept, for Pa. Conservation Resources Resources, Amicus Curiae. Byer, LLP, Duane
Robert L. Morris for Trus- Pittsburgh, tees of E. Trust, the Thomas Proctor Heirs Curiae. Amicus Malak,
Jeffrey Chariton, J. for Schwager & Malak, SWN Barre, Co., LLC, Production Willkes Amicus Curiae. Sims,
Andrew Harris Finley PC, Duncan Ft. Bogle & TX, Worth, Range LLC, Resources-Appalachia, Amicus Curiae. Stockman,
Paul LLP, Hoyt Keidel McGuireWoods Real- Resources, ty, LLC, Heritage LLC, Thorne Trustees Trust, Margaret O.F. Proctor Trustees Thomas E. Trust, Proctor Pittsburgh, Heirs Amicus Curiae. Overstreet, for Corp.,
David R. Seneca Resources Pitts- Curiae. burgh, Amicus C.J., BAER,
SAYLOR, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, JJ.
OPINION BAER.1 Justice
This ownership concerns the subsurface to a case tract of or County. land in Centre claims rise fall parties’ based whether a 1935 tax sale resulted the transfer After merely rights. entire the surface extensive review of the law tax sales regarding historical we conclude that the Pennsylvania, *4 issue, at both the including related the entire property affirm Accordingly, we the and subsurface estates.2 summary Superior grant judg- order the vacating Court’s Appellants remanding ment in favor and to the trial judgment Appellee. grant court for the to the summary reassigned following This case submission. 1.
2. An unseated land is forth extensive discussion of seated and set infra now, explain at at For it suffices to 143 A.3d 363-64. "seated developed improved land” or where as land” is land "unseated undeveloped. "wild” and History Procedural
I. and Factual undisputed. largely are The facts this case Warrant, in located Rush Siddons at is the Eleanor issue in 1798 as County. The was issued Centre warrant Township, as 438 acres, measure, and was assessed strict containing 460 into water- taking roads and acres, after account perches case, Appellants’ dispute to the As relevant ways.3 Keller, bought the Eleanor Sid- ancestors, Anna Harry and the Kellers sold 1894. at a tax dons Warrant Beck, Beck, and Isaiah James rights to Isaac the surface rights to themselves (Becks), reserving the subsurface Fisher covered the through indisputably extensive reservation an herein.4 gas natural issue complied the Becks the record that is no evidence
There infra, further which Act of discussed with the notice provide holder becoming a anyone Pennsylvania’s Society of Land Records explained As in the Historical 3. Guide, early developed policies instituted Pennsylvania’s land law encourage organized attempt settle- Penn’s sons an William Generally, person seeking pur- payment the land. a for ment application to the Office. The an Land chase land would submit warrant, land, secretary which would issue a described land, purchase price, terms of adjoining purchaser, the general's triggered surveyor The issuance of the warrant sale. land, survey produce responsibility surveying the which would adjoining important map features on the land and identified boundaries, helped county to create properties which and town and survey by Upon completion of the maps of the area. cohesive acreage, surveyor general verify surveyor, would which deputy survey percent After a six allowance for roads. included returned, providing the state patent would be issued clear title from (such original purchaser of proprietor Family) as the Penn or the Pennsylvania, property. Society of Records Guide Historical Land (2013) https://hsp.org/collections/catalogs-research-tools/ available Bingham land-records-guide; generally Mun- subject-guides/ see Donna Research, History ger, Pennsylvania Records: A and Guide Land IV, (1991). Section part, provides: In relevant the reservation reserving parties part, their Excepting unto the said the first stone, coal, assigns clay, iron ore and forever all the fire heirs and kind, being, gas lying or other minerals of oil and natural whatever may contained in or now or hereafter be formed or described of land.... mentioned or tract said above 20, 1899, (R.R.) Reproduced Record at 62a. of June Deed *5 to the county commissioners of the of transfer ownership. Moreover, the record contains no evidence the Kellers informed the commissioners of their rights. reservation of As below, discussed the Kellers were not to report their rights reservation of under the of reporting requirements the Act of 1806. lack of reporting, however, The is relevant to this case the county because commissioners were tasked with assessing for property taxation on purposes based what reported by the owners.
Following transfers not relevant to the issues in the case bar, Ralph acquired Smith the the Eleanor Thereafter, Siddons Warrant in 1922. County the Centre acquired Commissioners the in property via a sale treasurer’s November 1935 of unpaid as a result taxes and the lack of offering bidder upset price public at a sale. Docu- menting November 1935 County sale the Centre Treasurer to the County Commissioners is a deed dated June using sparse language 9 of of dictated Section the Act § as set forth at 72 as describing P.S. “a tract of unseated containing per land 433-153 acres situate in Twp. of County Centre, surveyed Ralph Rush Smith.” 10,1936, Deed June R.R. at 65a.
Following sale, the tax the Commissioners held the proper- ty, statute, accordance with until 1941 when the sold Max Herr. Deed memorialized the details the 1935 tax sale:
Whereas, the Treasurer of County, having given Centre due public notice place time and sale of the land, hereinafter mentioned tract of 29th day did November, 1935, expose public the same to nonpay- ment of person therefore, taxes no bidding, equal a sum sale, it, therefore, the amount of taxes due and costs of duty County became Commissioners Centre same, buy they accordingly did. 3, 1941,
Deed June R.R. at 64a. The Deed further recounted the sale occurred form of “according Acts of several Assembly providing selling the mode Un- seated lands taxes” and described follows: in Rush said Township, of Unseated land
a certain tract as follows: Centre, and described County of bounded containing 438 acres of Eleanor name Siddon[s] Warrantee *6 or reput- former owner of land the perches; which and Smith, tract of land hath and the said Ralph owner was ed designated by for the law. period unredeemed remained law, of the relevant As -will after discussion Id. be evaluated in this is whether the 1935 and critical case question merely entire Eleanor Siddons sales Warrant involved rights. the surface (Herder Spring Hunting Club Appellee
In Herder During from Herr’s widow. Spring) purchased aware of the search, Spring’s attorney Herder became the title lan- suggested reservation and that prior Kellers’ subsurface The deed to reflect the reservation. guage be added “Eleanor deed, describing property again as the Siddons subject conveyance [Wjarrant,” generically provided, “[t]his chain as are contained exceptions to all and reservations of title,” the Keller reservation. Deed specifying of without 13,1959, at 26a. Nov. R.R. into oil and Spring has entered several
Since Herder County Centre leases, recorded with the gas which were contrast, that, Spring of In observes Deeds. Herder Recorder reservation, family has refer- the 1899 the Keller never since rights through any docu- ownership the subsurface enced an ment, inventory an filed connection with estate such as or divorce. Spring complaint quiet Herder filed a August of Marcellus
title, discovery as a presumably result asserted that the 1935 Spring on the Herder property. Shale of subsur- extinguished tax sale the Kellers’ 1899 reservation argument of the is that because the rights. face basis not alerted the Kellers’ County Commissioners had been against rights, the taxes were assessed reservation Warrant, the sale Eleanor Siddons entire in a sale of the surface and delinquent taxes resulted both estate, simple rights. The tax the fee subsurface according Spring, extinguished any prior Herder reserved with the longstanding policy estates concurrence of “title- washing.”5 In argument, furtherance its Spring Herder that County the deed observed Centre Commission- to Herr only ers did reference the “surface estate” but rather the “Eleanor Siddons Warrant.”6
Both Spring Appellants, Herder heirs of the Kellers (Keller Heirs) judgment, filed motions summary form basis of the issues before Court. The Keller claim Heirs maintained their the 1935 sale resulted only in the transfer the surface Eleanor Warrant, despite acknowledging County Siddons “Centre separately gas did assess oil Property’s interests to the Tax Opposition 1935.” Brief in to Plain- Sale tiffs Summary Judgment They Motion for at 4. asserted (1) claim “fails Spring’s Herder as a matter law because *7 only operation production subsurface under and rights have (2) taxable, which is and only value assessable assessed by can be a tax acquired purchaser.” Keller’s Answer to Motion Spring’s Summary Judgment Herder at 3, action, R.R. at a They emphasized quiet 146. that in title on plaintiff, the burden of is the Herder to proof Spring, here quiet title the upon strength demonstrate reason based their own title.
The Keller Heirs of estoppel by further invoked the doctrine based 1959 upon Spring, deed Deed Herder 359, explained "title-washing” The term is 143 5. A.3d at 366- infra Spring possession 6. Herder also asserted a claim of adverse rights upon ultimately subsurface their trial court based leases. The claim, rejected finding this that the establish leases did not the neces- sary twenty-one years possession. Superior of continuous claim, ultimately as did not address the it in favor of found Herder Spring Spring Hunting on the issue before Court. Herder Club v. Keller, challenge (Pa.Super.2014). 93 n. 13 As no A.3d has Court, regard possession been raised in the adverse claim to this will not be discussed further. Kellers, Additionally, Appellants, the heirs of the filed an answer conversion, asserting relating new a claim of matter to the rental payments royalty Spring on the leases fees received Herder sounding ejectment a claim since and asserted based 1899 reservation. subject “conveyance that the acknowledgement an contains chain as are and reservations contained exceptions all reinvigorates that this statement They of title.” contend rights, suggested by as reservation subsurface Keller’s 1899 1959 transfer. attorneys negotiating the letters between the claiming has held that “one that this Court They observe recognition it contains by any is bound under deed of Defendant’s Support another.” Motion Brief title Moffett, Elliott at 6 Judgment (quoting Summary (1950)). A.2d, 164, motion for turn, Spring summary judg- Herder filed alia, inter that the Spring, contended ment. Herder of the entire conveyance in the Eleanor Siddons sale resulted rights alleged merely and not Warrant Relying pre-1947 statutes and caselaw Keller Heirs. Herder relating to taxation of unseated discussed infra. notify of the Kellers to that the failure Spring contended rights of the reservation subsurface County Commissioners Becks, rights sale of the surface following the 1899 [e.g. the fee interest in the tax assessment “result[ed] continue, rights] to and when the taxes surface and subsurface sold to [Herder it was this fee interest which was unpaid, went Spring in title Max Herr.” Herder Sum- Spring’s] predecessor It argued R.R. 119a. mary Judgment Motion required notify county land were owners proper to allow for commissioners interest assessment their commissioners were not and taxation and ownership for taxation purposes. to determine search deeds of mineral acknowledging may a reservation While *8 surface, Spring from the Herder separate create an estate assessment, that involved taxa- contended tax sale tion, of the entire Eleanor conveyance Siddons Warrant and of their report Kellers not because the did severance rights pay from the the tax rights subsurface on the entire Warrant. assessed In the trial court denied Herder September Spring’s granted and the Keller Heirs’ judgment for summary motion forth the histo- judgment. setting for After summary motion ry of the deeds for proper grant and of standard summary judgment, the trial court held because the in production subsurface had been for the reserved miner- als it did not have any value that ascertainable could have therefore, been assessed in taxed could have for delinquent been sold taxes. Accordingly, the trial court Spring’s only concluded Herder predecessor purchased the assessed surface estate at the tax sale.
The trial court further concluded that Spring’s Herder “claim of ownership based on the purported Harry failure of Keller to his report reservation of rights” subsurface failed because there were was “no one way evidence or another whether the ever reported Kellers their ownership interest purposes.” assessment Tr. Ct. Op., Sept. 29, 2010, at 7. fact, the court there emphasized, was no of of evidence records any reserved in mineral interests Centre County. Id. agreed
While the court seemingly with the Keller Heirs Spring Herder was aware of the reservation of subsurface Deed, rights the 1899 the court did not holding base its unequivocally concept estoppel by deed. Ultimately, the trial court summary judgment denied Spring Herder granted Keller Heirs.
Herder filed motion Spring for reconsideration that the court appealed trial It then Superior Court, denied. alia, challenging, inter whether the trial “failing court erred to recognize that a sale of the land for non-payment effectively rejoined real estate taxes the subsurface and sur- rights.” Keller, face Herder Spring Hunting Club v. A.3d 465, 465 A (Pa.Super.2014). unanimous Superior Court panel reversed the trial court and entry summary remanded judgment and the award subsurface favor Spring. Herder
II. Historical Review Taxation Unseated Land
Pennsylvania summarizing decision, Prior to Court’s Superior first we ownership review the unseated land and taxation principles *9 354 necessary Court’s Superior
between 1894 and analysis.
A. Seated vs. Unseated Land analysis in the case legal The critical distinction between the concept current is of unseated property at bar and law the 1947, Pennsylvania’s categorized Prior to as land. land was or land was property either seated unseated land.7 Seated structures, per- developed that had with residential had been for the tax upon upon that could “levied sonal be cultivation, due”, regular through or producing profit was mining. Grey Bushong, Pennsylvania or lumbering, Robert 469(11) (1938). Law, 1, § Land at 500-501 land Vol. Unseated any is as “wild” included land that best understood land but 469(IV) § requirements being not did meet seated. Id. or at 501. The determination whether land was seated entirely “eye of the unseated land based asses- sor,” county determining who would whether land traverse being developed county then “return” the land to the commissioners to assess the for taxation. Stoetzel v. al., (Pa.1884). Jackson et 1800s, early large Between the Revolution and the tracts of of Pennsylvania wilderness the interior were owned speculators hopes who lived on the coast in would increase in population Bushong, value increased. § Many 470 at 502. neither developed these landowners nor paid Notably, the taxes Id. the owners of land. always county unseated lands were not known authori- Long ties such that personal given. notice could (1913) Phillips, 241 Pa. A. (observing that for unseated land “it frequently occurs the owner’s deed recorded, registered, known, his name is not he is not no one is in actual possession, apparent and there is no owner reputed owner in the neighborhood property.”). legislature repealed underlying some of acts and, instead, concept "property” unseated land taxation defined purposes including of the Real Estate Tax Law as both seated and Sale 5860.102; §§ unseated land. See 72 P.S. 5860.801. developed Commonwealth different sets of land tax laws address the difficulties regrading collecting tax on unseated *10 § Bushong, land. 472 at 503.
If the assessor seated, that the land determined owner, land was taxed to land who was personally respon payment for the sible of the taxes which could collected be against Id., 469(11) his her personal property. at 501. The land, of however, owner unseated was not personally responsi payment taxes, ble of which were imposed instead on itself, in the land the name of person original whom the warrant had Sagamore been issued. See Proctor v. Big Game Club, 465, 166 F.Supp. (W.D.Pa.1958), 475 aff'd, 265 196 F.2d (3d Cir.1959). The current owner’s name would used “only be purpose for the of description.” F.H. Rockwell & Co. v. al., (1910). County, 430, 665, et 228 Pa. Warren 77 A. 665-666 As explained by 1841, this Court in itself, it,
[T]he of is owner debtor it is public charge; immaterial, therefore at the moment sale, may what ownership, be state or how many may derivative interests have been carved out it. public With these the no They has concern. are sold with land, as a just remainder would be sold with the particular estate. Shoemaker, (Pa.1841) 1 166,
Strauch v. Serg. Watts & 175 (quotation omitted); marks see also Bannard v. New York 239, (1972) Corp., State Natural Gas 448 Pa. 49 293 A.2d that “it is (holding immaterial that the name of owner given inaccurate, the assessment is personal since no liabili- involved; is ty land, owner, not the to for is looked taxes”). payment delinquent land,
As was true for seated this Court concluded unseated land into could be severed surface and subsurface assessed, estates, taxed, and, which could if separately Rockwell, necessary, at tax sold sale. 77 A. 666. There is ample citing evidence our caselaw to the tax books various counties indicating the assessment and sale mineral Bannard, estates from separate e.g. the surface. See 293 A.2d 45; Co., v. A. A. Wilson Cook Sons (“where there (1929) of the land ownership there is divided taxation”). to be divided ought the Eleanor dispute do Siddons War- parties The of the 1935 tax sale. at the time rant was unseated land system Accordingly, we consider the taxation “separate and distinct which we have noted subjects.” for the of taxes on other enacted collection Long, A. at 438.
B. Act on the Acts substantially this case focus arguments 1815,8 chronological which we address reverse 1806 and taxation of unseat- insight into the provides as it better order property. ed purchaser courts of unseated land
Prior to *11 compliance literal “an exact and at a sale to demonstrate tax sale, including of the law” related to the every with direction county officers. returns the relevant the election even 472(V) § at Morton, 322; generally Bushong at see 9 Watts prove for a nearly impossible purchaser As it 505. was details, rarely upheld, sales were such that “few tax these Morton, 9 pay lands taxes.” Watts would owners unseated Additionally, discouraged purchasers the laws tax 322. at or friendly neighbor “some the land improving because out dispossess would seek the owner prowling speculator” and Id. at 322-23. the purchaser.” to en- to correct this legislature attempted The situation See the interior unsettled lands. courage development the 1815, 1804, have which the Act of Acts of 1806 and amended The 542, 7, 1368, 1947, large e.g. July repealed part. See No. been P.L. (repealing Act of 1804 certain § 1815 72 P.S. 5860.801 the and Nevertheless, districts). during taxing the the Acts force tax were 1804, 517, 3, April L. The Act of P.L. 4 Sm. sale at in this case. issue 201, directing selling lands "An mode of unseated was act the entitled L, 346, 1806, 28, 644, 4 Sm. was The Act of March P.L. taxes." enjoining 'An certain supplement to the act act entitled entitled "A executed, on holders of holders of warrants not and the duties on the ” 299, 1815, 177, 13, L. The Act of Sm. lands.’ March P.L. 1847, 1804, amended Act the Act of and was itself amended 9, March P.L. 278. Strauch, Colkett, 176-77; Williston v. Serg& at Watts 9 Pa. (Pa.1848). purpose the Act of 1815 towas change proof presumption burden “to substitute the done, everything rightly proof was that was Morton, 323; see also William W. rightly done.” Watts Hall, A Passing Manual Title Searches and Titles in (1934). Pennsylvania^ § 148 90-91 The purchaser need merely prove unseated, that “the land that a tax was charged commissioners, regularly or irregularly[, and] unpaid that the tax was and the land sold and redeemed Harris, years.” Morton within two Watts at 324. The noted, however, that, presumed compli- while Act sale, ance with requirements proper of a an owner presumption could rebut with direct evidence Id. met. elements were not
The Act provided specific of 1815 regarding instructions process selling unpaid unseated land collect taxes. It county dictated that hold sale on public treasurers June Monday every second two thereafter years for the sale of tracts of unseated land taxes 1,§ had for at unpaid year. been least a Act of set § forth at 72 P.S. 5981. The act further the notice of directed Id., by publication specified newspapers. the sale set forth §§ at 72 6002.9 in “a P.S. The sales would result deed Id. deeds, in simple.” fee taxing advertising
This Court explained solely name of warrant rather than the owner “[t]he assessors and cannot sufficient because commissioners *12 Morton, the place.” know all transfers title which take 9 contrast, at In notice of land, 325. the Watts seated provided given had to to the pending sale be owner owner, seated was in the taxed name the unlike property, subjecting the owner to personal liability Commission, Pennsylvania for the taxes. Luther v. Game (1955). 442, 113 314, A.2d 315 provisions regarding publication newspaper 9. the details have been times before revised various and are not relevant to the issues this Court. finality also providing
To the owner while protect delinquent year two legislature provided redemp- the purchaser, for the 6091; 1815, 4, § § Act of set forth at 72 P.S. see period. tion 473(V) If Bushong, paid § at 507. the owner generally (later to twenty-five percent reduced plus taxes and costs or shall entitled to then the “owner owners be percent), fifteen Act of by due course of law.” Id. The [lands sold] recover the 1815, however, period: two-year that after the specified on no shall an action plea,
in no other case and other be alleged irregularity ... no the assess- [and] sustained otherwise, or ment, process or in the or shall be construed purchaser, to the title of the the same shall taken affect but legal. to good declared be Id.; 473(V) § at Bushong, 507. outstanding purchaser price pay
If no bid a sufficient taxes, county of 1815 commissioners Act to the Eleanor purchase property, regard as occurred 1815, § forth at Siddons Act set 72 P.S. Warrant. 473(V) 6131; § § at 507-08. event Bushong, see also commissioner, the had a county of a owner purchase (rather than two period years years) of five redeem the all Act of property upon payment of taxes and interest. 473(V) 6132; § § § forth Bushong, set at 72 P.S. see also If redeemed 507-09. owner could sell the land. during years, the five commissioners 1815, 7, § §§ Act of set forth at P.S. 6135. Section specified wording of the Act of further deed commissioners, from the treasurer used § the case at bar. 72 P.S. that “some of the enactments in the noted
While on appear original law of 1815 harsh and severe would owner,” necessary act was considered to address the evil that existed to it purchaser “[t]he where spend money bought.” taxes labor the land he dare Morton, opined, at 323. further We Watts All vigilant nothing
A has fear. he has do is owner taxes, upon every and this he is to do pay his bound
359 more, principle equality justice. Nay, of and when this has him, been the has him legislature omitted allowed redeem land within years, his two [or five] terms no means onerous.
Strauch, 1 Serg. & have repeatedly Watts 176. We noted that any to the tax brought contests assessment must be within statutory period the “cannot collaterally and be at Bannard, 49; fifty tacked later.” years 293 A.2d at see also Wilson, atA. 65. 148 Title-washing
C. An 1815, offshoot of the Act of and Act of which it 1804 supplemented, is the concept “title-washing.” of 5 of Section provided: Act land,
[S]ales for taxes that are now due ... unseated effectual, shall equity law and valid and all intents purposes, purchaser vest in the or purchasers aforesaid, therein, lands sold all estate and interest that the real owner or thereof owners had at the time of such sale, although may land have taxed been sold the name the real owner.” This explained extinguishes previous Court “a sale all Co., titles,” v. The Zerbe Run Improvement Reinboth (Pa.1858), “all other claimants excludes Spring, date.” Caul v. Watts (Pa.1834).
In
Lantzy,
(1896),
purchased entire *14 rights. the gaining subsurface there was an questioned whether Powell
The Court pur from the surface owner forbidding reason equitable recognized tax sale. This Court property at chasing the entire imposed the tax the land where was that, to unseated personal responsibility, not the landowner’s and therefore land from pur of a title “the holder defective nothing prevented 648, A. 450 at a sale.” at one tax Id. chasing better (Pa.1856)). Gibson, 27 Pa. (quoting Coxe v. bar, duty, explained at the court relevant to the case
As
was
thereof,
pay
taxes: “The whole
or lack
landowners
acquired
they
for taxes
existed
subject to a claim
which
before
nor
title,
owner]
neither
surface
the subsurface
[the
and which
If
[the
to the state
either
any obligation
pay.
was under
it,
not have
paid
had
he could
owner]
subsurface
549,
at
proportionate
other his
share.” Id.
recovered
appor
no
Moreover,
opined
way
that there was
A. 450.
pay
“Any
obligation
agree
jointly
moral
tion the tax.
share,
upon
tax,
contributing
just
equally
his
rested
each
legal duty
no
parts;
but there was
the owners
different
joint,
separate,
this.
It
their
not their
on either to do
was
at
450. The
peril.”
were in
Id.
34 A.
which
interests
purchase
of the entire tract means
affirmed
Court thus
on the
unpaid
of a tax sale
taxes assessed
based
Kline,
also
to the division. See
Hutchinson
property prior
(1901).
564,
In Proctor v.
Game
land in the late 1800s
a tax sale
addressed
1950s,
in the
mirrors the
transactions
purposes
Proctor,
F.Supp.
at
of the case
bar.
timeframe
(Proctor)
Proctor
200-01.
Thomas
aff'd, 265 F.2d at
from
at a
the then-owner
an unseated
purchased
not
After
prior year’s
paid.
taxes had
time when
been
pay
property,
apparently
Proctor
did
purchasing
subject
Accordingly, the property
1892 taxes.
delinquent
simple by
in fee
purchased
sale in 1894 and was
ed
a tax
(Childs).
later, Proctor,
the tax
despite
Months
Childs
G.W.
sale, purported to sell the
to Elk
Tanning Company
but
Childs,
reserve
mineral interests to himself.
who
president
also
Elk
Company,
Tanning
later
his
assigned
in the
rights
interest
mineral
from
tax
sale to
compan
Proctor,
y.10
In the
Proctor’s heir
attempted
invalidate the tax
sale to
Childs
claiming that the
deed
the tax sale had
property acknowledged
been
or that there were fraudulent
aspects of
dealings
Childs’
company.
with his
rejecting
After
the claim that the
was not properly
deed
acknowledged, the
court
tax
observed that the
sale had divested the prior owner
of the ability to
the property
sell
any
reserve
mineral
rights as
all
owner’s
had been extinguished
via
Proctor,
sale.
166 F.Supp.
aff’d,
200-
F.2d at
*15
Moreover,
held,
court
“[w]hen
the
there
sepa
is no
rate
of
minerals,
assessment
a purchase
the
of the
whole
the
of
owner
surface
title
the
divests the
of
of
the owner
the
Proctor,
minerals.”
Accordingly, interpreting Pennsylvania courts law have a long of history accepting the of a concept reuniting tax sale severed estates of unseated perfecting previous- ly defective titles.
D. Reporting Duties County Owners vs. Commissioners of
under the Act of Factually, the issues on this case turn whether the taxes assessed and not paid 1935 were Eleanor assessed Siddons as or merely Warrant a whole note, interesting parties 10. As an historical involved in this transac- tion were covering also involved in other similar transactions a substan- portion tial purported attempt several counties in a to consolidate Company, arguably bark lands into the United States Leather with the Proctor, reserving rights. land owners mineral 265 F.2d 201-02. tannery Proctor and Childs were both owners. Id. issue, arguments of the many In addressing estate. duty had a on whether the Kellers this case have focused into surface and the 1899 of the estate report subdivision Commissioners, County mineral estates to the Centre assessment and taxation triggered separate would have value). (or if it had no the Keller's estate no taxation mineral 1806, well as our review of the Act of question requires This its the Act of 1804. predecessor, initially the Act of 1804 regard property, to unseated surveyors report the commissioners required deputy a list county all in the with surveyed the lands regarding original surnames on the war- including the and the acreage 1804, § 1. rant, Act of The the Eleanor e.g. Siddons Warrant. listing commissioners, turn, keep a book were original name of the acreage tract and the each with the owner. Id. that “it provide the Act of 1806 to Legislature enacted provide lands” to duty every holder unseated
shall be describing signed with a statement county commissioners or person persons tract of and “the name of the passed, commonwealth original title whom nature, number, original title.” Act and date such transfers, Act provided: 1. To future 1806 Section address becoming hereafter duty every person shall be the [I]t land, other gift, grant, conveyance holder statement, together to furnish a like date with holder, name of conveyance grantor, to such and the *16 in year, conveyance. one from and after such with Id., § 502ÍM09. forth in at 72 P.S. The part set substantial for to information was “four times penalty failing provide this amount of tax to which such tract or tracts of land would the Notably, penalty the was have been otherwise liable.” Id. the report penalty for failure to and did not address purely tax, at issue in the case bar. pay failure to the which is on commis- any duty county did not impose Acts to the unseated land or regarding sioners obtain information through to whether lands had to search deed books discover Jackson, changed hands. See Stoetzel v. 106 Pa. (Pa.1884). Instead, the obligation initially on the survey- ors to return the surveys and then on the original subsequent owners to inform the commissioners the land to allow owned the commissioners to an impose appropriate In tax. Gephart, (Pa.1870), Pa. this Court Heft opined that the system tax “entirely treated unseated lands in original reference warrants when otherwise directed owners.” The courts of Pennsylvania have considered consequences of tax sales unseated lands connection with an duty owner’s to report under the Acts of 1806 and 1815. We will review several of these cases.
In a specifically considering case ability tax a subsur- estate, face emphasized the distinction between the right owners sever and the taxing authorities assessment of taxes: “The authority tax and the manner of its exercise nothing has to do right with the the owner either to his hold tract land entire or to it by grant sever of different Rockwell, estates therein.” A. at 666. In reaffirming unseated, seated, as well as could landholders sever their estates, recognized subsurface we the method for assess- on ing taxes estates differed that of seated estates owners, based “the difficulties of ascertaining the and other like considerations.” Id. Williston, an this Court failure to report faulted owner’s County Commissioners an error the tax assessment
of his property, which resulted in his paying taxes several years upon only a third of the acreage warrant he owned. After the pay landowner failed taxes and a occurred, this Court that the concluded tax sale covered the acres original significant- identified warrant despite ly acreage assessment, smaller listed because assessment was based on land as “identified number warrant, name the warrantee and the name of the owner from purchased.” whom current had [the landowner] Williston, 9 at 39. The number of acres the assess- ment, correct, which the owner merely descrip- failed *17 that Accordingly, the Court concluded details
tive term.
controlled,
by
correction
the owner.
absent
in the warrant
Michew,
Serg.
&
1844 WL
In
7 Watts
McCoy v.
were
recognized that the commissioners
(Pa.1844),
Court
for
determining
ownership
purpose
for
land
responsible
on the landowners
burden was
taxation and instead
Act
in the
culminating
enactments
legislative
to the
pursuant
case,
the contested
this Court addressed
In that
1815.
by
covered
apparently
of land that
was
ownership
a tract
the owner
had
The Court faulted
who
warrants.
different
thirty years,
pay
or
land
report
failed
appreci
ownership
the land had
sought
then
when
establish
The
statutory redemption period.
value,
after
long
ated
easily
it
one which can
noted,
hardship,
“If
be
Court
there
imposes
duty
which the law
by performing
avoided
his
Id.
owner],
pay
return the
taxes.”
land
upon [the
5025, at *5.
391, 1844
WL
Kline,
curiam a
per
this Court affirmed
In
Hutchinson
of Common Pleas.
County
of the Elk
While
decision
trial
binding analysis, the
court’s
not provide
this Court did
law at that
judiciary’s
view tax
insight into
opinion gives
Hutchinson,
the case at
analogous
in a case
bar.11
time
into
divided
a surface
case, unseated
had been
as in this
deed,
there
no indication
but
estate
and subsurface
separately,
had been assessed
that the surface and subsurface
on the
delinquent
taxes
to a tax sale of
lands
duty
that it
opined
The trial court
property.
entire
to give
the Act of 1806
lands under
the holder
unseated
or the assessors.
the commissioners
notice of the severance
38).
Williston,
court
Hutchinson,
9 Pa.
(citing
Accordingly, under caselaw the Act of applying failure to report severance of unseated land could result not only in a statutory four-fold penalty, but also had the practical effect of having whole, assessed and taxed as a given that the assessors were not to required determine the sometimes elusive current owmership. Superior
III. Court Decision As in the procedural history discussed section of opin- ion, Herder Spring appealed Court Superior challenging the trial denying court’s order summary judgment its motion granting summary judgment favor of the Keller Heirs. As relevant Court, the issues before this Spring Herder contended that the trial court erred that the concluding 1935 tax sale to the County 1941 Deed Commissioners and the estate, Herr involved only such that the mineral Instead, remained with the Keller Heirs. Herder Spring asserted that the transfers involved the entire Eleanor upon Siddons Warrant based the absence notice to the County Commissioners the Kellers’ 1899 severance of the surface and subsurface estates. Spring appealed rely- Herder ing heavily upon the law discussed above.
The Keller Heirs responded that the Kellers were required report the severance under the Act of that if they severance, even were to report the penalty to report failure was the four-fold tax penalty rather than the of their tax loss at a sale. Alterna- tively, argued Kellers Spring estopped that Herder from asserting their claim acknowledgement based their 1959 subject Deed that the to any deed was reservations in the chain of title. Superior history, deed discussing the extensive
After
the 1899 severance had never
that because
Court concluded
Commissioners, the Eleanor
County
reported
been
a whole and thus
and taxed
assessed
Warrant was
Siddons
Spring,
Herder
in the 1935 tax sale.
entirety
in its
was sold
“that the
deeds do
The court
The court that the Act of 1815 of the estate. The noted entire proper that the tax sale was absent presumption two-year redemption period. Id. a the initial challenge within Therefore, redemption period passed initial at when the deed, party to the sale or the no could challenge without sale, Court process Superior of the which challenge to the entire Eleanor Siddons Warrant. had concluded related claim that additionally rejected the Keller Heirs’ The court could not have been taxed sold the Kellers’ mineral estate that it given it had no value was delinquent taxes because minerals was un- and that the value non-producing argu- Superior opined The that the valuation known. during redemption period ment should have been asserted contemporaneous not raised now. Absent and could estate, court of a mineral addition- value assessment ally recognized this noting Court’s caselaw confusion would be caused by “[attempts prove that accessors [sic] did or did not presence know the or gas oil they when assessed ‘minerals’ at point past.” some Id. 473 n. 49). Bannard, (quoting Confusion, 293 A.2d at the court noted, would result from not knowing what had been sold based whether the specific mineral had been known exist at a specific time, which was an system. unworkable Superior Court additionally dismissed an amicus curi- ae ’s argument statutory that the penalty for an owner reporting ownership the commissioners was a penalty of tax, four-fold the rather than forfeiture at a tax sale. Id. 471 n. 10. rejected The court also any reliance on subject Deed’s reference to “being to all exceptions and reser- title,” vations as are contained the chain of concluding that the chain of title in 1959 any did contain exceptions “active or reservations.” Id. at 473.
In concluding, the court suggested the “resolution of this matter is at odds with modern legal concepts.” Id. at 473. Nonetheless, the Court opined that it not “proper to reach back, more than three years, apply score a modern sensibil- ity thereby undo legally done.” Id. Analysis
TV.
After the Superior Court denied their
petition
reargu-
reconsideration,
ment en banc or
the Keller Heirs filed a
*20
petition for allowance of appeal
granted.12
which this Court
Keller,
(Pa.
Herder Spring Hunting Club v.
Initially, we that this observe case involves compet ing summary judgment motions. Accordingly, scope while our of trial review the court’s determination is plenary, we will supported arguments The Keller Heirs are in their addressed below by Heirs, their amicus curiae the Trustees of the Thomas E. et Proctor analysis arguments al. Our is further supplied informed the Spring Pennsylvania Department Herder and its amici curiae the Resources, Resources, Range Conservation and Natural SWN Produc- Co., LLC, Corp. tion Seneca Resources or abused committed an error law if the court
only reverse Club, 571 Pa. Mills Gulph v. Tennis its discretion. Atcovitz (2002). is “Summary judgment 1221-22 580, 812 A.2d clearly where the only those cases record appropriate fact no of material genuine issue there demonstrates as a matter judgment is entitled moving party that the 1085.2). alia, Pa. R. Civ. P. More (citing, Id. inter of law.” summary judgment stage a over, review the facts courts Id. addition nonmoving party. We most favorable light a plaintiff bringing as the Spring, that Herder recognize ally action, proof and must recover on has the burden quiet title Lehigh & Nav. strength of its own title. Albert Coal the (1968). 600, 246 Co., 431 Pa. A.2d 1935 Tax Sale Legal Consequences A. Extent and overarching Heirs’ first issue addresses The Keller County 1935 tax sale to the in this case: whether question estate only in the surface Commissioner resulted sale They essentially claim the entire Eleanor Warrant. Siddons filing conveying of their 1899 deed proper Kellers’ estate, estate, reserving placed but subsurface of the property, of the severance County Centre notice solely conveyed proper the surface such that the 1935 tax Deed referenced the land ty. They emphasize that Smith,” the surface owner of “surveyed Ralph sub-issues, several This first issue contains time. addressed seriatim. Court for Superior Heirs fault
Initially, the Keller report on the Kellers to duty an affirmative imposing that the Keller the Act 1806. We conclude under severance of the Act of 1806 portion that the relevant Heirs are correct “becoming on a a holder duty party imposed reporting only land,” that, ownership their given of unseated Warrant, a holder entire the Kellers did “become” reserving estate and by selling the surface mineral estate.13 issue, Superior that the separate Keller Heirs assert
13. As
determining
fact-finding authority
the Kellers
did
exceeded its
*21
Nevertheless,
based
the case law
length
discussed at
above,
agree
Superior
we
with the
Court’s conclusion that if
neither the
nor the purchaser
Kellers
in
reported
transfer,
then the Centre County Commis-
sioners would have assessed and taxed the Eleanor Siddons
entirely.
Warrant
its
unequivocally
We
stated
Heft
system
the tax
to
relating
land,
unseated
including
Acts
“entirely
treated unseated
reference
the original warrants when not
otherwise directed
516;
Heft,
Hutchinson,
312;
owners.
65 Pa. at
see also
49 A.
Williston,
39;
9 Pa. at
McCoy, 7
Serg.
Watts &
at 390. As
ownership
ascertainable,
land was not easily
County Commissioners
were
tasked with searching deed
records
the present
determine
ownership
unseated land.
Rockwell,
666; Stoetzel,
See
Next,
reject
we
the Keller Heirs’ claim that the
reference
surveyed
the “land
to Ralph Smith” in the 1936 Deed from the
Treasurer
to the County Commissioners indicated that
Instead,
deed
limited
the surface estate.
recognize
we
that unseated land
was assessed
taxed
the name of the
Warrant,
any
owner,
reference to the presumed-current
Smith,
Ralph
such as
merely
used for descriptive pur-
Bannard,
poses. See
(holding
We find argu- Keller Heirs’ ment that Act of penalty 1806’sfour-fold tax apply would to this case. The properly recognize Keller Heirs that the Act of penalty failing report under the 1806 was four times the sale at the heart of this relevant tax. 1935 tax case, however, report was not the failure to triggered
provide purposes compliance severance with Act notice compliance aspect As with conclude that of the Act of we definitive, 1806 is not will issue. we not discuss this *22 or of of owner owners
ownership
but instead
the failure
tax.14
property
pay
the taxed
the assessed
1935 tax
should
Heirs next contend that the
The Keller
rights
the reserved mineral
encompass
deemed to
be
in
value
1935.15 The
rights did not have taxable
those
because
acknowledging
in
language
Rockwell
rely upon
Keller Heirs
if
subject to tax
it is
only
estate can
be
that
subsurface
value
rights
or other
have actual
demonstrated
mineral
neigh-
of
current
or an evaluation
through
production
either
Rockwell,
They
A. at 665.
claim
boring properties.
77
in
no
as
tax sale
this case had
value
rights
the reserved
Heirs, however,
recognize
fail to
that the
in 1935. The Keller
of
value
the minerals
irrelevant
potential assessable
as a
assessment
the Warrant
whether the 1935
addressed
Indeed,
theory
their
merely
whole or
the surface estate.
owners,
years
for fee
who
after
simple
lead to a windfall
could
prior
that the
of the entire
could claim
the tax sale
mineral
exempted specific
tax sale should
deemed
have
value,
today
no
are
that at the time
the sale had
but
rights
an
coveted,
example.
being
with Marcellus Shale
obvious
City
rely upon
support,
Keller Heirs
this Court’s decision
14. In
Miller,
(Pa. 1865),
Philadelphia
49
450-52
where the Court
Pa.
v.
language emphasizing
should not be
that the seizure
used
however,
case,
penalty
report. That
for the four-fold
substituted
where
assessment listed a warran-
involved an unusual situation
the tax
completely
tee
unrelated to the name connected to
name
transcription
land at issue due to a
error.
suggest
gas rights,
in the reserva
Heirs
that the
included
15. The Keller
rights,
conclusively
non
be deemed
to be
tion of subsurface
should
gas
subject
given
holding
not be
taxable
our recent
oil and
should
Indepen
because those substances are not
to ad valorem taxes
"land.”
Fayette
Appeals
Board Assessment
Oil and Gas Assoc. Pa. v.
dent
Co.,
(2002) (IOGA).
reject
argu
We
A.2d 180
Gas,
only applies prospectively.
ment we have held that IOGA
Oz
District,
(2007).
Ltd.
School
595 Pa.
A.2d 274
Warren Area
prospectively,
specifically emphasized the
applying
IOGA
this Court
gas
taxing
taxes.
protect
reliance on
oil
need
authorities'
additionally
We
noted that the trial court in that case
Id. at 284.
also
would,
effect,
"[rjetroactive application
IOGA
invali
observed that
sales,
leading prior
seek
perhaps
of those tax
owners to
date each
properties
Id.
279. The trial
return of the
lost to those tax sales.”
consequences weighed in
court and this Court both concluded that such
applying
prospectively only.
favor of
IOGA
a theory
Such
would result
in chaos
courts
whereby
today
would be
to determine whether certain minerals or
other subsurface
would have had
taxable value
Bannard,
late 1800s. See
A.2d
Moreover,
above,
forth
as set
if the
disputed
Kellers
County Commissioners’ failure to assess their subsurface es-
separately
tate
from the
estate,
they should have
contested the assessment
sale within the initial two-
year redemption period.
expiration
After the
of that redemp-
tion period, a
challenge
of the tax
propriety
sale would
not be
heard under
Section
the Act of 1815: “no alleged
irregularity
assessment,
or in
or
process
otherwise,
shall be construed
taken to affect the title of the purchaser,
*23
the same
good
but
shall be declared
legal.”
be
and
72 P.S.
6091;
Bannard,
§
49; Strauch,
see also
Finally, the Keller Heirs
attempt
distinguish the caselaw
relating to title-washing by
cases,
emphasizing
the cited
Lantzy,
such
Powell v.
address situations where the sever
ance occurred after the imposition
taxes,
of
whereas the
severance of the
Eleanor
Warrant
in
Siddons
occurred
years prior to the assessment and taxation that lead to the
They
1935 tax sale.
also
significance
minimize the
of Hutch
inson,
pre-taxation severance,
which
a
involved
as this
curiam,.
merely
per
Instead,
rely
affirmed
the Keller Heirs
Bell,
this
in
Court’s decision
Pipe
Tide-Water
Co. v.
(1924),
The Court
of
land
to a treasurer’s sale
apply
not also
would
at a tax
purchaser
The Court held
taxes.
delinquent
easement, servitude,
to an
or
subject
takes the
sale
also
of an easement.
The Court
Id.
interest
in the nature
from the
or
was distinct
right way
that an easement
opined
with the tax sale.
fee,
pass
thus did not
Pipe,
in
holding
that this Court’s
Tide-Water
conclude
We
controlling
not
rights way,
to easements
relating
if
assessed
estate
the estate has
to a subsurface
been
regard
notorious
above-
open
a whole. Unlike
and taxed as
right-of-way,
all
of the
made
aware
ground pipes which
viewed
estate could
be
a subsurface
severance
whole,
Thus, if
assessed as
the warrant had been
assessor.
“all the estate and interest
have divested
the tax sale would
or
time of such
the real owner
owners had at the
therein, that
right
contrast,
§ 5. In
the easement
Act of
sale.”
not an “estate
interest”
Pipe
[or]
way
Tide-Water
thus,
and,
affected
owner
at 355.
Pipe,
A.
1804. Tide-Water
under
Act
recognizing
our
the difficul-
Additionally,
light
caselaw
ascertaining
ownership
the then-current
ty assessors had
for the
based
providing
assessment
unseated land and
in the
of direction
the own-
absence
the entire warrant
timing
on the
ers,
reject the Keller Heirs distinction based
we
65 Pa. at
Heft,
versus
severance. See
assessment
*24
discussed,
liability
on
the
As
tax
unseated land was
Therefore,
property
if the
land rather than the
the
owners.
paid
a
none
the
property
as whole
owners
was assessed
to
tax,
satisfy
the
sold as
the
then
would be
a whole
“[a]ny
forth in
cogently
Lantzy,
As
set
Powell v.
that tax.
tax,
agree
jointly
each contrib-
obligation
pay
moral
of the
just share,
equally upon
rested
the owners
uting his
legal
no
on either
do
duty
there was
parts;
different
but
interests which
separate,
joint,
It
their
their
this.
was
Proctor,
450;
166
34
see also
peril.” Id. at
A.
were
(“[w]hen
of the
separate
F.Supp. at 475
there is no
assessment
the surface
minerals,
by
of the whole
purchase
the owner
divests the
minerals”);
title of the
Hutchinson,
owner
After rejecting the Keller Heirs’ various arguments regard- ing sale, the effect of the 1935 tax we next consider whether documents the record demonstrate the 1935 tax sale imposed the Eleanor Siddons Warrant as a whole. We reiterate that the caselaw counsels that unseated land should be according assessed original warrant, absent direction owners, from the and that a tax conveys the property by covered assessment. See New York State Natural Gas Corp. v. Development Swan-Finch Gas Corp., 278 F.2d Cir.1960) (3d (recognizing “the well rule established that a conveys only deed such interest as was actually assessed to the defaulting taxpayer,” citing Brundred Egbert, (1894)). 30 A. Moreover, Act Section of the provided that taxa sale of conveys unseated land “all the estate and interest” “that the real owner owners thereof sale,” at the time of such had such that the tax on the entire all convey estate would held owners property. assessed case,
In this
the documents
relating
the 1935 tax sale
provide no
that
indication
the assessment and taxation oc
on anything
curred
other than the entire Eleanor Siddons
Warrant, as they provide no reference to the
estate or
surface
estate. Therefore,
reserved subsurface
we conclude
1935 tax sale to the Centre County
conveyed
Commissioners
the entire Eleanor
including
Siddons Warrant
both
estates. Accordingly,
subsurface
when neither the Kel-
lers nor the
challenged
surface owners
the assessment or tax
sale and failed to redeem the property within the relevant
redemption period, their title
extinguished, allowing
entire Eleanor Siddons
purchased
Warrant
1941 Herr, from whom
Spring
Herder
derives its title. See Rein
both,
Assuming arguendo
law,
relevant
mineral estate under the
the Kellers’
passed
apologia regard-
Superior
Court’s
seize
Keller Heirs
that
not in line
of this case
“unduly
aspect
harsh”
ing the
regarding due explained has process requirement fundamental due elementary
An
and
finality
is notice
which is
be accorded
any proceeding
circumstances, to
calculated,
ap-
all the
reasonably
under
of the action and
pendency
parties
interested
prise
objections. The
their
opportunity
present
them an
afford
reasonably
convey
as
must be
such nature
notice
must
reasonable time
information,
afford a
appearance.
those
to make their
interested
Co.,
339 U.S.
Hanover Bank & Trust
Mullane
Central
(1950) (citations omitted).
In
652, 70 S.Ct.
L.Ed.
allowing
Mullane,
past precedent
with
High
Court broke
cases,
distinguished
as
for in rem
by publication
notice
process
that due
cases,
opined
and instead
personam
an action is
whether
deemed
are
altered
requirements
312-13,
S.Ct. 652.
personam.
Id.
in rem in
of notice
recognized
perils
publication
The Court
unconstitutional
cases where
by publication
notice
deemed
is known
of residence
parties’ identity
place
argument
response
Spring and its amici’s
that
to Herder
by failing
issue
process claim
to raise the
Heirs
their
Keller
waived
due
below,
argument
the Keller
purpose of
that
we will assume for the
through
challenge
sufficiently preserved
issue
their
Heirs
sale, given
ultimately
that
we
conclude
applicability of the 1935 tax
argument
the merits. We do not address
Heirs’
fails on
the Keller
process
their due
issue as
Keller Heirs should have raised
whether
dissent,
defense,
given
party
no
suggested by
an affirmative
argument
presented
to this Court.
has
*26
Id.
entity.
318,
Court,
at
however,
The
Court specifically addressed
provision
of a tax
delinquent
notice
sale to a
property’s
It
mortgagee.
opined
mortgagee
“unless the
reasonably
is not
identifi
able, constructive notice alone
not satisfy
does
mandate
Adams,
Múlleme.” Mennonite Bd. Missions v.
462 U.S.
791, 798,
2706,
(1983) (citation
103 S.Ct.
At sale, time of to Mullane the 1935 tax Mennonite, through publication constructive notice was sanc- for rem actions. As noted above, following tioned the cited decisions of Supreme subsequent the United States Court and remin Court, decisions of this by publication notice cases subject the same due process analysis as generally disfavored.17 Neverthe- actions personam publication as custom- less, approved “resort courts or reasonably possible it is not ... where substitute ary Mullane, 339 warning.” adequate practicable give more situations, government In such U.S. 70 S.Ct. conclude extraordinary make efforts. We is “reasonably possible practicable” what that what effort” consider- requires an “extraordinary constitute would we look to Accordingly, of the era. ation of the constraints to guide the relevant time our determination decisions notice personal or constructive process required due whether land. for a 1935 tax sale *27 the already opined regarding Court has Interestingly, for of unseated of notice tax sales provided the reasonableness Philadelphia of in City to the Act 1815 pursuant land of (Pa.1865) Miller, 440, City other 49 Pa. 450-52 and cases. a not receive party concluded that did Philadelphia, we of in tax was made of a sale where the assessment proper notice due to a land entirely a name unrelated unseated to James error, land warranted transcription specifically, Turnbull, any in John without assessed the name Trembel was Thus, if information. the owner identifying other tax, not found an his he would have attempted pay had linked to logically that could entry in the assessment list be Nevertheless, criticizing in the notice at 449-50. land. Id. his notice case, explained why by this Court specific in that involving notice in most cases proper was publication land. dispute whether and recognize that exists Mullane Mennonite
17. We ago, retroactively occurring applied to tax sales decades should two-year period in involving provisions similar to the especially in cases challenging procedural aspects of sales. See the Act of 1815 tax Management, Corp., 112 Pirate Lake Oil Quantum Resources L.L.C. v. 209, (La.2013) "divergence opinion” (recognizing of 215-217 So.3d Mennonite). application of As we find the regarding the retroactive due by publication proper in this case even under notice Mennonite, not by we need process set forth Mullane standards arguendo questions and instead assume these contentious address retroactively. apply the cases
377 Initially, the Court opined that the law had “ample provision for notice to the owner” through procedures of creating compiling surveys describing land, allowing year assessed, owner a to pay the taxes and providing and in requiring sixty days’ notice the sale daily papers in both the relevant in which county and Philadelphia, property described reference warrantee owner. Id. at 450; § Indeed, 72 while in City P.S. mentioned Philadelphia, sales Act under the only occurred years on June, even-numbered the second Monday limited potential surprise. v. Heasley, Peters 10 Watts (Pa.1840). 208, 210 City The Court Philadelphia also approved notice if the even land was assessed and taxed in the long name “real owner” so the assessment was “in made of one name connected some title with the land,” which would the owner allow identity property subject Clark, to tax. Id at 451. Compare Humphrey v. (1948) 836, factors, 58 A.2d (considering such as neighboring listing properties, allowing for sufficient identification of when the assessment in a made owner) Wilson, name than other Pa. at 148 A. (finding assessment mineral name owner’s identification) McKlveen, sufficient with Hunter v. 361 Pa. (1949) (concluding A.2d 367-68 that assessment of fifty-four which combined tracts into four without other useful information not provide proper did identification *28 tax). subject of the land
In City Philadelphia, recognized the Court that owner of contested, of ship unseated land was often that it such “not duty of the tax officers between them.” decide City Indeed, Philadelphia, Pa. at 451. this Court of subsequently opined knowledge is “[i]t common with subject those familiar with the that it frequently occurs that recorded, is not not registered, owner’s deed his name is known, not he is no one in actual no possession, is there is apparent neighborhood owner in the of the reputed owner property.” Long, Moreover, 88 A. at referencing 438. statutory two-year redemption period for tax of sales no
land,
if
“received
notice
held that even the owner
the Court
diligence
of
sale, it
of him no
measure
great
of
City
Philadel
years.”
look after his interests within two
has found the notice
C. Deed Spring
Lastly, the Keller Heirs assert
Herder
asserting
a claim to the subsurface
estopped
should be
provid
in their 1959 Deed
acknowledgement
due to the
subject
exceptions
is
all
ing
conveyance
“[t]his
title,”
in
chain of
without
as are contained
reservations
R.R. at 26a. The Keller
specifying the Keller reservation.
that the acknowl-
reject the
Court’s conclusion
Superior
Heirs
reservations,” as
subject
they
to “active
edgement
only
exceptions
it is
and reservations.”
subject
claim that
“all
As
a well established
recognize, “[i]t
the Keller Heirs
is
by any
claiming
that one
under
deed
bound
principle
Elliott,
365 Pa.
recognition
contains
title
another.”
case,
specifically
However,
We time in the there was no reservation “contained title” Spring, the 1935 reservation extinguished because *29 Notably, the subsurface estate. a manual from the time of the sale, 1935 tax because land itself respon- remarked “the owner, for the taxes regardless purchaser sible who is the a tax the first sale link in a chain of title becomes new and he need not prove the title back the same.” William W. Hall, A Title Passing Manual on Searches and Titles in (1934). Pennsylvania, § we this Accordingly, find issue meritless.
V. Conclusion holding applies We this to a very observe case involving quiet limited subset title actions former- cases Indeed, at a tax ly prior unseated land sold cases, not govern within subset decision would specified those tax sales which whether the assessment in- or the rights. Additionally, volved mineral it Keller Heirs to tax apply contend would not sales assessment, where severance occurred after the tax as our Furthermore, cases address such scenarios. would can apply possession where owners meet the adverse standard, court Spring which the trial found Herder missed. Therefore, application, though this case has limited substantial significance to which it applies. those to
In conclusion, Superior vacating affirm the Court’s order we grant judgment in favor of the Keller Heirs summary remanding grant judgment Herder summary and for the Spring Hunting Club.
Chief Justice SAYLOR Justices DOUGHERTY join the opinion. WECHT concurring opinion.
Justice TODD files the consideration did not participate Justice DONOHUE or decision of this case. TODD, concurring.
Justice join scholarly Majority Opinion I comprehensive disposition respects Baer in all save one: the Justice *30 of notice of the 1935 Heirs’ claim that method Keller afford- guarantees the due publication—violated process sale— issue, On that by the United States Constitution. ed them of arguendo, assumes, applicability the retroactive majority Trust, 306, Hanover Bank and 339 70 Mullane v. Central U.S. Board (1950), Mennonite 94 and 652, L.Ed. 865 S.Ct. of Adams, 462 791, 2706, 103 L.Ed.2d Missions v. U.S. S.Ct. 77 Heirs, (1983), by the Keller the resolution suggested 180 as, in my argument, I not entertain this of this claim. would view, purposes appeal. of this this has issue been waived discusses, of United States majority
As
decisions
Mennonite
for the
Court in Mullane and
recognized,
Supreme
of the Fourteenth
time,
Due
Process Clause
first
prescribes
Constitution
of the United States
Amendment
governmental bodies are
manner of notice that
judicial
their
involving
a
decree
affected
provide
parties
property.
tax sale
their
rights,
pending
or the
acknowledges
application
that the retroactive
majority
unresolved,
high Court
currently
as the
remains
these cases
question and there remains
substan-
spoken
has not
to this
state
which have consid-
among
courts
split
authority
tial
17,
it. See
Opinion at
The Keller Heirs’ claim that notice by publication 1935 tax sale not satisfy did due process was raised for the first time in their petition for allowance of to our appeal Court. Yet, for an issue to preserved for appeal, a party must raise it at the first possible opportunity to so. Cagnoli do Cf. Bonnell, (1992) (issue 611 A.2d waived when counsel raised it at the earliest possible time in below). the court This particular civil proceeding action —an quiet title —conforms to and, our rules of civil procedure, thus, provisions all of those applicable. rules are See Pa. *31 (“[T]he R.C.P. 1061 in procedure the action to quiet title from entry commencement of judgment shall in be action.”). accordance with the rules to a relating civil Keller Heirs’ challenge sale, essence, to the tax distilled to its is a claim that illegal the sale was it their because violated constitutional rights. view, due process Consequently, in my 1030(a) the Keller Heirs required by plead were Pa.R.C.P. alleged of the tax in the trial an illegality court as affirmative in defense response Appellee’s complaint 1030(a) (“[A]ll quiet title. See Pa.R.C.P. affirmative defenses including not limited to illegality but ... ... shall pleaded be ”.). in a responsive pleading heading under the Matter’ ‘New In that complaint, Appellee alleged that it fee acquired a simple interest the surface and both subsurface estates under the Act of sale, 1806 as a result of it the 1935 tax further contended was done accordance with law then existence and with the Keller First knowledge. Heirs’ full See 12a-23a) (R.R. Complaint Amended Action to at Quiet Title ¶ 19. As any the Keller Heirs did not of a raise issue process impediment due legal in a validity the sale responsive pleading to this complaint, despite being first opportunity claim, for them to raise such a I would deem for purposes waived of the present appeal under Pa.R.A.P. time,” sale, "from the relevant time the tax to assess whether by publication comported
notice Act of authorized with this 376-78, Majority Opinion standard. A.3d 377-78. 302(a) (“Issues lower are waived and not raised court on appeal.”).2 for the first time cannot raised I in the result only, concur as to this issue Accordingly, majority, not in rationale. but its reached
143A.3d380 Rhys In the S. HODGE. Matter EM No. 52 2016. Pennsylvania. Supreme July ORDER PER CURIAM. NOW, day July, Application this 20th
AND Exemption to Pa.R.A.P. 123 and for Judicial Relief Pursuant is im- 219 is Petitioner Pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. GRANTED. 219, as per status Rule mediately reinstated active judges who sit within the Common- similarly provided are requirements all other reinstatement Any wealth. *32 waived. or senior mem- Petitioner remains an active
To the extent see Pa.R.C.L.E. 102; Reg. Pa.C.L.E. Bd. of the ber judiciary, If requirements. subject § not be to annual CLE he shall status, lawyer requirements to active such returns Petitioner 6(c) resume, Continuing accordance with Section shall See Reg. Pa.C.L.E. Bd. Regulations. Board Legal Education 6(c). § above, Appellee specifically raised in its brief the issue has
2. As noted process claim was waived their failure to Heirs' due that the Keller and, thus, view, court, question my of whether raise it in the trial arguably required Pa.R.C.P. it in the manner the failure to raise 1030(a) fairly therein. waiver is subsumed constitutes