Bancroft, J. v. Consol Pennsylvania Coal

J-A27022-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JAMIE L. BANCROFT, JAN MARIE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
DASIN BANCROFT, SUE HUTCHINS, : PENNSYLVANIA
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF :
THELMA CARNS, DECEASED, JACK R. :
CLUTTER, DEBBIE CLUTTER, PATRICIA :
A. CLUTTER, ROLAND L. CLUTTER, :
ELDON D. DAY, ROBERT EISIMINGER, :
CARRY M. HEADLEY, JASON K. :
HEADLEY, JOHN A. HILL, CAROL J. :
HILL, ELAINIE K. JACKSON, ROXINE L. :
MARSHALL, BILLY W. MARSHALL, :
BRANDY A. NEUENDORF, MICHAEL K. :
NEUENDORF, MARY A. STREBEL, ERMA :
J. THOMAS, ROBIN G. ZIROLL, :
:
Appellants :
:
v. :
:
CONSOL PENNSYLVANIA COAL :
COMPANY, :
:
Appellee : No. 21 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered December 20, 2013,
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County,
Civil Division, at No. 2013-634.
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 18, 2014
Jamie Bancroft et al., the heirs of Cora Rutan (the “Heirs”), appeal the
order sustaining the preliminary objections of Consol Pennsylvania Coal
Company (“Consol”). We affirm.
J-A27022-14
Cora Rutan inherited a one-half interest in the coal estate1 beneath
141 acres, more or less, in East Findley Township, Washington County (the
“Tract”) from her mother, Birdie F. Finley, in November 1930. The
remaining one-half interest in the coal estate was owned by Leonard Clark
(one-quarter interest) and Maude Manon (one-quarter interest). A tax sale
of the coal interest resulted in the Treasurer of Washington County issuing
three Treasury Deeds on April 25, 1940, to the Washington County
Commissioners, followed by a conveyance of the coal interest from the
Washington County Commissioners to Charles E. Hackney (“Hackney”),
Consol’s predecessor in interest. Consol’s Brief in Support of Preliminary
Objections, 8/1/13, at Exhibits D and E. Because the Commissioners’ deed
did not include reference to the support estate associated with the Tract,
1
Pennsylvania recognizes three discrete estates in land: the surface estate,
the mineral estate, and the right to subjacent (surface) support.
Pennsylvania Services Corp. v. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 98
A.3d 624, 629 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing Hetrick v. Apollo Gas Co., 608
A.2d 1074, 1077 (Pa. Super. 1992)). These estates are severable;
therefore, different owners may hold title to separate and distinct estates in
the same land. Id. “Where there is a separation of the minerals from the
surface, the owner of the mineral estate owes a servitude of sufficient
support to the superincumbent estate.” Id. (quoting Smith v. Glen Alden
Coal Co., 32 A.2d 227, 235 (Pa. 1943)). This servitude of subjacent
support is a separate estate in land and is referred to as the “third” estate.
Id. While “[i]t is well established under Pennsylvania law that it is the
owner of the surface land who has the proprietary right to support of the
surface[,] ... [i]t is equally well settled that this right may be waived either
expressly or by implication.” Consolidation Coal Co. v. White, 875 A.2d
318, 327 (Pa. Super. 2005).
-2-
J-A27022-14
Hackney filed a quiet title action in November 1944 to determine who owned
the support estate. Hackney documented service of process by the sheriff
on the two in-county defendants, Leonard Clark and Maude Manon, and by
certified mail/return receipt and publication on Cora Rutan, who lived out of
county. The trial court issued a rule to show cause why title to the coal and
support estates should not be quieted in favor of Hackney. Cora Rutan did
not respond to the rule; therefore, judgment was entered against her. 2 The
Washington County Commissioners then issued a second deed to Hackney,
thereby formalizing his right to all title and interests in the coal and support
estates associated with the Tract. Id. at Exhibit G.
Nearly seventy years later, the Heirs filed a complaint for declaratory
judgment seeking an order declaring that they own the right of support
associated with the Tract. Consol filed preliminary objections in the nature
of a demurrer, claiming that the Heirs “are not entitled to the relief sought in
the Complaint as a matter of law because the right of support previously was
conveyed and quieted in the name of [Hackney, Consol’s] predecessor in
title.” Preliminary Objections, 4/1/13, at § 11.
Relying on Cora Rutan’s failure to answer the rule, the trial court
sustained Consol’s preliminary objections and dismissed the Heirs’
2
At oral argument before this panel, the Heirs abandoned their position that
Cora Rutan did not receive notice of the quiet title action.
-3-
J-A27022-14
complaint. This appeal followed, in which the Heirs present the following
questions:
Should the trial court have granted [Consol’s] demurrer
and dismissed the complaint?
1. Can the trial court conclude that the treasurer deeds
conveyed the right of support based on the public records?
2. Can the trial court conclude that the quiet title action filed
at 181 November Term, 1945 AD validly established title in
Charles E. Hackney?
3. Can the trial court conclude that the tax sale included the
support estate?
The Heirs’ Brief at 2–3.
“[A]n order granting preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer
is a final order and is, therefore, appealable to this Court immediately.”
D’Elia v. Folino, 933 A.2d 117, 121 (Pa. Super. 2007). Our standard of
review of a trial court’s order granting preliminary objections in the nature of
a demurrer is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Krajewski v.
Gusoff, 53 A.3d 793, 802 (Pa. Super. 2012).
When reviewing the dismissal of a complaint based upon
preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, we treat as
true all well-pleaded material, factual averments and all
inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Where the preliminary
objections will result in the dismissal of the action, the objections
may be sustained only in cases that are clear and free from
doubt. To be clear and free from doubt that dismissal is
appropriate, it must appear with certainty that the law would not
permit recovery by the plaintiff upon the facts averred. Any
doubt should be resolved by a refusal to sustain the objections.
-4-
J-A27022-14
Moreover, we review the trial court’s decision for an abuse of
discretion or an error of law.
Swisher v. Pitz, 868 A.2d 1228, 1230 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted).
“The impetus of our inquiry is to determine the legal sufficiency of the
complaint and whether the pleading would permit recovery if ultimately
proven.” Brosovic v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 841 A.2d 1071,
1073 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted).
We consider the Heirs’ second issue dispositive of this appeal. Upon
review of that issue, we discern no basis for disturbing the trial court’s order.
The Heirs initiated this action, seeking a declaration of their right to
the support estate, because they claim the tax deeds—which were silent as
to the support estate—did not convey the right of support. Therefore, the
Heirs contend, all subsequent actions premised on the initial tax sale were
invalid as to a conveyance of title to the support estate. The Heirs’ Brief at
10–12; N.T., 12/17/13, at 10–15. Consol, however, argues that the Heirs
are barred from attacking its title by reason of Hackney’s post tax-sale
action to quiet title. Consol’s Brief at 11–13; N.T., 12/17/13, at 5, 8–9. We
agree with Consol. Consol proffers that a rule absolute is a final judgment
from which an appeal lies and that a notice of appeal shall be filed within
thirty days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken.
Consol’s Brief at 12 (citing Notley’s Petition, 106 A. 716 (Pa. 1919), and
Pa.R.A.P. 903(a), respectively).
-5-
J-A27022-14
Here, following the tax sale and the Commissioner’s conveyance to
Hackney, Hackney filed an action to quiet title to the coal and support
estates associated with the Tract. The trial court issued a rule requiring
Cora Rutan to take action within thirty days. Cora Rutan received notice of
the rule, but she did not challenge Hackney’s claims within the thirty-day
period. Therefore, the trial court made the rule absolute:
…and it further appearing that no one has appeared or answered
the said rule; it is ORDERED AND DECREED that the rule issued
on the 9th day of October, 1945 is hereby made absolute as to all
persons named in the said rule, and generally upon all other
persons who have or claim to have any right, title interest
in, or claim against the said described land; and it is further
ORDERED AND DECREED that hereafter all rights and claims of
those persons with respect to the said described land shall be
totally barred, and any deficiency or defects whereby the
land was acquired at the Treasurer’s sale and the
Commissioner’s sale, from the filing of the claim or lien up to
and including the actual sale and delivery of the deed to such
land shall not hereafter be asserted, and the title of the
petitioner, Charles E. Hackney, shall be and is hereby
adjudicated and decreed valid and indefeasible as against
all such persons with respect to all such claims.
Final Decree, 1/21/46 (emphasis supplied). This procedure was compliant
with the rules of court. See Pa.R.C.P. 1066(b)(1) (“Upon granting relief to
the plaintiff, the court (1) shall order that the defendant be forever barred
from asserting any right, lien, title or interest in the land inconsistent with
the interest or claim of the plaintiff set forth in the complaint, unless the
defendant takes such action as the order directs within thirty days
thereafter.”).
-6-
J-A27022-14
Based on the foregoing, we conclude the Heirs’ are barred from
contesting Consol’s title to the support estate. The claims they now raise
could have—and should have—been presented in response to Hackney’s
quiet title action. However, Cora Rutan failed to appear or answer the rule
issued in Hackney’s quiet title action, and she did not appeal from the order
making the rule absolute. See Pa.R.A.P. 903 (“[T]he notice of appeal
required by Rule 902 (manner of taking appeal) shall be filed within 30 days
after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken.”). Thus, we
further conclude the trial court did not err in sustaining Consol’s demurrer
because the Heirs’ claims would not permit recovery even if ultimately
proven. Brosovic, 841 A.2d at 1073.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/18/2014
-7-