J-A26044-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
THE MT. MORRIS SPORTSMEN’S : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
ASSOCIATION : PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
A. WILLIAM BOYERS, BARBARA E. :
STROSNIDER AND RUTH A. HAINES, :
:
Appellants : No. 506 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order March 28, 20161
in the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County,
Civil Division, No(s): A.D. 650 of 2014
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., RANSOM and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED MARCH 23, 2017
A. William Boyers, Barbara E. Strosnider and Ruth A. Haines
(collectively, “Defendants”) appeal from the Order granting summary
judgment against them and in favor of The Mt. Morris Sportsmen’s
Association (“the Association”) in this action to quiet title to surface, oil and
gas rights as to a 101.5-acre tract of land in Perry Township, Greene
1
We observe that on March 28, 2016, the trial court entered an Order
resolving the claims of the parties, and stating that the Order would be
made final upon the entry of a praecipe to enter judgment. Defendants filed
a Praecipe that same date, but judgment was not entered on the docket. As
the Praecipe rendered the March 28, 2016 Order final, we will address the
merits of the claims raised.
J-A26044-16
County, Pennsylvania (“the Property”).2 We reverse and remand with
instructions.
Clara Boyers (the wife of William F. Boyers), James C. Mason, Cora B.
Fox, William H. Mason and Sarah Mason (collectively, “the Mason Heirs”)
each inherited an equal share of the Property upon the death of their
mother. In 1924, the Mason Heirs recorded a deed (“the 1924 Deed”)
conveying certain interests in the Property to William H. Mason and Sarah
Mason. Thereafter, William H. Mason recorded a deed conveying certain
interests in the Property to William F. Boyers and Clara Boyers (collectively,
“the Boyerses”).
As the trial court summarized in its Opinion,
[t]he Association and [] Defendants claim title [of the right to oil
and gas underlying the Property] through a common source,
William F. Boyers. [] Defendants assert that William F. Boyers
severed and retained to himself the oil and gas rights underlying
the [P]roperty through [a deed dated May 9, 1947 (“the 1947
Deed”)]. The Association contends that those rights were
transferred through the 1947 [D]eed [to John B. and Mary L.
Maxon, husband and wife (collectively, “the Maxons”)], who, in
turn[,] conveyed all of their rights to [the Association].
On July 10th, 201[4], the President of [the Association],
Donley McCormick [“McCormick”], conveyed all the
[Association’s] right, title, and interest in and to the oil and gas
2
We note that “Pennsylvania recognizes three discrete estates in land: the
surface estate, the mineral [or subsurface] estate, and the right to subjacent
(surface) support. Because these estates are severable, different owners
may hold title to separate and distinct estates in the same land.”
Pennsylvania Servs. Corp. v. Texas E. Transmission, LP, 98 A.3d 624,
629 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted).
-2-
J-A26044-16
rights underlying the [Property, by means of a quit claim deed,
(“the Quit Claim Deed”)] to [Defendants].
Trial Court Opinion, 2/18/16, at 1-2.
In October 2014, the Association commenced the instant action
against Defendants to quiet title to the right to oil and gas underlying the
Property, and to void the Quit Claim Deed. Defendants filed an Answer and
a Counterclaim to quiet title to the same right to oil and gas underlying the
Property. At the close of discovery, the Association filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment, arguing that the Quit Claim Deed from McCormick to
Defendants was void, as he lacked authority to convey the Association’s
interest in the Property. Consequently, the Association claimed that it
owned the surface of the Property, and an undivided 3/5 interest in the right
to oil and gas underlying the Property.
Defendants filed a Reply to the Association’s Motion, and a Counter-
Motion for Summary Judgment. By their Counter-Motion, Defendants
argued that they own an undivided 2/5 interest in the right to oil and gas
underlying the Property, and a 9/10 interest in the Property’s surface.
Defendants further argued that James C. Mason owns an undivided 1/20
fractional interest in the surface of the Property, and in the right to oil and
gas underlying the Property. Finally, Defendants argued that the heirs of
Cora B. Fox own an undivided 1/20 interest in the surface of the Property,
and in the right to oil and gas underlying the Property.
-3-
J-A26044-16
After oral argument, the trial court entered an Order and Opinion
declaring the Quit Claim deed null and void, granting the Association’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissing Defendants’ Counterclaim.
Trial Court Order, 2/18/16. The trial court found that because McCormick
lacked the authority to convey the Association’s oil and gas rights, the Quit
Claim deed is void. Trial Court Opinion, 2/18/16, at 2-3 (unnumbered).
Consequently, the Association retained ownership of the surface of the
Property, and an undivided 3/5 interest in the right to oil and gas underlying
the Property. Id. at 3 (unnumbered).
Ultimately, on March 28, 2016, the trial court entered an Order
granting the Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing
Defendants’ Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment and Counterclaim, and
stating that the Order would be made final upon entry of a Praecipe for final
judgment. Trial Court Order, 3/28/16. On March 28, 2016, the Association
filed a Praecipe to enter judgment. Thereafter, Defendants filed the instant
appeal, followed by a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of
matters complained of on appeal.
Defendants present the following claims for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred by dismissing Defendants’
Counterclaim and granting [the Association’s M]otion for
summary judgment[,] and improperly interpreting the deeds in
the chain of title to 101.5 acres of oil and gas rights underlying
[the Property] … and holding that [the Association] owns three-
fifths (3/5) of the oil and gas and Defendants have no ownership
in said oil and gas rights[?]
-4-
J-A26044-16
2. Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider the
interest of Sarah Mason, which would have passed under
intestacy laws to all of her four siblings and not just to her
brother, William Mason[?]
3. Whether the trial court erred by failing to properly interpret
the 1947 deed from William [F.] Boyers to [the Maxons]
whereby the Maxons received all of the surface and three-fifths
(3/5) of the oil and gas[,] instead of nine-tenths (9/10) of the
surface and one-tenth (1/10) of the oil and gas[?]
Brief for Appellants at 5-6. As all of Defendants’ claims implicate the
interpretation of deeds in their chain of title, we will address the claims
together.
Our scope of review of an order granting summary judgment is
plenary. Gilbert v. Synagro Cent., LLC, 131 A.3d 1, 10 (Pa. 2015).
Our standard of review is clear: the trial court’s order will be
reversed only where it is established that the court committed
an error of law or clearly abused its discretion. Summary
judgment is appropriate only in those cases where the record
clearly demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. The reviewing court must view the record in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party, resolving all doubts
as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact against
the moving party. When the facts are so clear that reasonable
minds cannot differ, a trial court may properly enter summary
judgment.
Id. (internal citation omitted).
In their first claim, Defendants argue that the trial court improperly
granted summary judgment in favor of the Association where the 1947 Deed
(in their chain of title) excepted and reserved to William F. Boyers3 an
3
Defendants are the grandchildren of William F. Boyers.
-5-
J-A26044-16
undivided 2/5 interest in the right to oil and gas underlying the Property.
Brief for Appellants at 17, 19. Defendants argue that if William F. Boyers
had intended to reserve the same 2/5 interest in the right to oil and gas
previously reserved by James C. Mason and Cora B. Fox in a 1934 deed
(“the 1934 Deed”), he would have referred to that deed in his own exception
and reservation. Id. at 20.
In their second claim, Defendants assert that the trial court erred by
failing to consider Sarah Mason’s interest in the Property, “which would have
passed under intestacy laws to all of her four siblings and not just to her
brother, William [H.] Mason.” Id. at 21. Defendants argue that upon Sarah
Mason’s death, William H. Mason owned an undivided 17/20 interest in the
surface,4 and 1/4 interest in the right to oil and gas underlying the Property.
Id. at 22. According to Defendants, William H. Mason thereafter conveyed
his interest in the Property to the Boyerses by means of the 1934 Deed.
In their third claim, Defendants challenge the trial court’s
interpretation of the 1947 Deed from William F. Boyers to the Maxons. Id.
at 25. Defendants argue that the 1947 Deed reserved to William F. Boyers
his interest in the right to oil and gas underlying the Property, which
subsequently passed to Defendants. Id.
4
Although this appeal does not require a determination of the surface rights
to the Property, we discuss those rights in the context of interpreting the
rights conveyed by the deeds in the respective chains of title.
-6-
J-A26044-16
Defendants’ claims require us to construe the deeds in their chain of
title to the Property. When construing a deed,
a court’s primary object must be to ascertain and effectuate
what the parties themselves intended. Mackall v. Fleegle,
2002 PA Super 178, 801 A.2d 577, 581 (Pa.Super. 2002). The
traditional rules of construction to determine that intention
involve the following principles. First, the nature and quantity of
the interest conveyed must be ascertained from the deed itself
and cannot be orally shown in the absence of fraud, accident or
mistake. [] We seek to ascertain not what the parties may have
intended by the language but what is the meaning of the words
they used. [] Effect must be given to all the language of the
instrument, and no part shall be rejected if it can be given a
meaning. [] If a doubt arises concerning the interpretation of
the instrument, it will be resolved against the party who
prepared it. [] ... To ascertain the intention of the parties, the
language of a deed should be interpreted in the light of the
subject matter, the apparent object or purpose of the parties
and the conditions existing when it was executed.
Consolidation Coal Co. v. White, 875 A.2d 318, 326-27 (Pa. Super.
2005).
[W]here there is any doubt or ambiguity as to the meaning of
the covenants in a contract or the terms of a grant, they should
receive a reasonable construction, and one that will accord with
the intention of the parties; and, in order to ascertain their
intention, the court must look at the circumstances under which
the grant was made. It is the intention of the parties which is
the ultimate guide, and, in order to ascertain that intention, the
court may take into consideration the surrounding
circumstances, the situation of the parties, the objects they
apparently have in view, and the nature of the subject-matter of
the agreement.
In re Estate of Quick, 905 A.2d 471, 474-75 (Pa. 2006) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
-7-
J-A26044-16
Our review of the record discloses that, prior to 1924, the Property
was owned by the Mason Heirs.5 By the 1924 Deed, Clara Boyers and her
husband, William F. Boyers, James C. Mason and his wife, Fannie Mason,
and Cora B. Fox and her husband, Chas W. Fox (collectively, “the Mason
Grantors”), conveyed their interests in the surface of the Property to William
H. Mason and his sister, Sarah Mason (collectively, “the Mason Grantees”),
“to hold as joint tenants and not as tenants in common.”6 1924 Deed
at 1 (emphasis added). The Mason Grantees each continued to own an
undivided 1/5 interest in the surface of the Property, which they inherited
from their mother. The 1924 Deed, inter alia, included the following
exception and reservation of oil and gas rights:
Also excepting and reserving to the [Mason Grantors], their heirs
and assigns, the [sic] three fifths (3/5) of all the oil and gas in
and underlying above described tract of land together with the
right to mine and operate for oil and gas and to lay pipe lines, to
build tanks, stations and structures thereon and to take care of
said products: the free use of sufficient water from the premises
to run all necessary machinery and the right to remove at any
time all machinery and fixtures placed on said premises by the
said parties of the first part, their heirs and assigns for the
purpose of operating oil and gas.
5
The Mason Heirs acquired title through their parents, Joshua and Mary
Mason.
6
In a joint tenancy, each party holds an undivided share of the whole
estate. General Credit Co. v. Cleck, 609 A.2d 553, 556 (Pa. 1992). Upon
severance of the joint tenancy (by, for example, voluntary alienation), the
realty becomes a tenancy in common. Id. “[A] joint tenancy with right of
survivorship is severable by the action, voluntary or involuntary, of either of
the parties.” Estate of Quick, 905 A.2d at 475.
-8-
J-A26044-16
1924 Deed at 2-3. As a result of the 1924 Deed, no Mason Grantor retained
an interest in the surface of the Property.
In determining whether the 1924 Deed created a joint tenancy with
right of survivorship as to the undivided 3/5 surface interest conveyed to the
Mason Grantees, we are cognizant that,
[a]t common law, the doctrine of survivorship was a recognized
incident to a joint estate. The American doctrine, on the other
hand, holds the creation of joint estates in disfavor and instead
presumes that tenants hold as tenants in common, without the
right of survivorship. This doctrine found expression in the
legislature’s enactment of Acts 1812, March 31, P.L. 259, 5
Sm.L. 395, § 1, which was later expressly saved from repeal by
Acts 1972, June 30, P.L. 508, no. 164, § 3(b), effective July 1,
1972, and transferred to 68 P.S. § 110 in 1974.
…
Notwithstanding the legislative presumption against the
right of survivorship in joint tenancies, the doctrine of
survivorship has not been wholly abolished. This incident may
still exist when expressly provided for by deed or will or
when it arises by necessary implication.
Riccelli v. Forcinito, 595 A.2d 1322, 1326 (Pa. Super. 1991) (citations
omitted, emphasis added). When two or more persons hold property as
joint tenants with the right of survivorship, title to that property vests
equally in those persons during their lifetimes, with sole ownership passing
to the survivor at the death of the other joint tenant. Estate of Quick, 905
A.2d at 474.
Here, the 1924 Deed expressly stated that the Mason Grantees would
hold title to the conveyed 3/5 surface interest as “joint tenants and not as
-9-
J-A26044-16
tenants in common.” 1924 Deed at 1. As a result, the 1924 Deed expressly
created a joint tenancy between the Mason Grantees as to the undivided 3/5
surface interest conveyed by the 1924 Deed. See Riccelli, 595 A.2d at
1326. Each Mason Grantee held an additional, undivided 1/5 interest in the
surface of the Property, as tenants in common.
Our review further discloses that the 1924 Deed conveyed no oil and
gas rights to the Mason Grantees. Prior to the 1924 Deed, each of the five
Mason Heirs owned an undivided 1/5 share of the right to oil and gas
underlying the Property. In the 1924 Deed, the Mason Grantors expressly
excepted and reserved from the conveyance their 3/5 interest in the right to
oil and gas underlying the Property. 1924 Deed at 2. As each Mason
Grantee already owned an undivided 1/5 interest, as tenants in common
with the Mason Grantors,7 no oil and gas interests were conveyed by means
of the 1924 Deed.
Sarah Mason died intestate and without issue on May 11, 1933. Upon
her death, her jointly held 3/5 interest in the surface of the Property vested
in William H. Mason. See Estate of Quick, 905 A.2d at 474. As Sarah
Mason died intestate, the original interests inherited from her mother, i.e.,
her undivided 1/5 interest in the surface and the right to gas and oil
underlying the surface of the Property, passed to her siblings by intestate
7
The essence of a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship is the four
unities: interest, title, time, and possession. Estate of Quick, 905 A.2d at
474). The record reflects no deed creating a joint tenancy as to the
undivided oil interests held by the Mason Heirs.
- 10 -
J-A26044-16
succession. Consequently, upon Sarah Mason’s death, Clara Boyers, James
C. Mason and Cora B. Fox each owned (a) an undivided 1/20 share in the
surface of the Property, and (b) an undivided 1/4 share of the right to oil
and gas underlying the Property. William H. Mason owned an undivided
17/20 interest in the surface of the Property (a 3/5 interest through the
1924 Deed, his original 1/5 interest, and the 1/20 interest inherited from
Sarah Mason), and an undivided 1/4 interest in the right to oil and gas
underlying the Property.
The record reflects that in 1934, William H. Mason executed the 1934
Deed, transferring his interests in the Property to the Boyerses. The 1934
Deed included the following exception and reservation of rights by William H.
Mason:
Also excepting and reserving as recited in the previous deed
of [the Mason Grantors,] dated September 27, 1924, the
three-fifths (3/5) of all the oil and gas in and underlying
the above described tract of land together with the right to
operate for oil and gas and to lay pipe lines, to build tanks,
stations and structures thereon to take care of said products, the
free use of sufficient water from the premises to run all
necessary machinery and the right to remove at any time all
machinery and fixtures placed on said premises in keeping with
said exceptions and reservations.
1934 Deed at 1 (emphasis added). By its language, the 1934 Deed
conveyed William H. Mason’s 17/20 interest in the surface of the Property to
the Boyerses. When combined with Clara Boyers’s 1/20 interest in the
- 11 -
J-A26044-16
surface (inherited from Sarah Mason), the Boyerses owned an undivided
9/10 interest in the surface of the Property.8
At the time of the 1934 Deed, William H. Mason owned an undivided
1/4 interest in the right to oil and gas underlying the Property. The 1934
Deed expressly excepted and reserved the 3/5 oil and gas interests
originally excepted and reserved by the Mason Grantors in the 1924 Deed.
The 1934 Deed did not except or reserve any additional oil and gas interests
owned by William H. Mason. As a result, William H. Mason conveyed his
undivided 1/4 interest in the right to oil and gas underlying the Property to
the Boyerses. When combined with the 1/5 interest Clara Boyers previously
had excepted and reserved in the 1924 Deed, plus her 1/20 interest in the
right to oil and gas inherited from Sarah Mason, the Boyerses owned, in
total, an undivided 1/2 interest in the right to oil and gas underlying the
Property.
In 1947, William F. Boyers9 conveyed his interest in the Property to
the Maxons. 1947 Deed at 1. The 1947 Deed included the following
exception and reservation of rights:
8
James C. Mason and Cora B. Fox each continued to own an undivided 1/20
interest in the surface of the Property, inherited from Sarah Mason.
9
Clara Boyers died prior to the execution of the 1947 Deed, leaving her
estate to her husband, William F. Boyers. The Defendants claim title
through William F. Boyers (their grandfather) and Albert A. Boyers (their
father).
- 12 -
J-A26044-16
EXCEPTING AND RESERVING all the undivided two-fifths
interest in all the oil and gas rights, together with all other
minerals, in and underlying the [Property].
The title to the above described tract of land being in William H.
Mason partly by descent from his father, Joshua Mason, and
partly by conveyance from the heirs of the said Joshua M.
Mason, his brothers and sisters.
BEING the same tract of land conveyed by William H. Mason,
Single, to William F. Boyers, by deed dated March 5, 1947 ….
Id. (emphasis added). Unlike prior conveyances, the 1947 Deed included no
language referring to the exception and reservation of oil and gas rights set
forth in the 1924 Deed (an undivided 3/5 interest), or any prior deed.
Further, the 2/5 figure did not correspond to interests previously excepted or
reserved.
At the time he executed the 1947 Deed, William F. Boyers owned an
undivided 9/10 interest in the surface of the Property, and an undivided 1/2
interest in the right to oil and gas underlying the Property. He excepted and
reserved “all the undivided two-fifths interest in all the oil and gas rights …
in and underlying the [Property.]” Id. As a result, the 1947 Deed expressly
and unambiguously conveyed to the Maxons an undivided 9/10 interest in
the surface of the Property, and a 1/10 interest in the right to oil and gas
underlying the Property. William F. Boyers retained ownership of an
undivided 2/5 interest in the right to oil and gas underlying the Property.
- 13 -
J-A26044-16
In a deed recorded on February 11, 1957 (“the 1957 Deed”), the
Maxons conveyed their interest in the Property to the Association. The 1957
Deed included the following language:
ALSO EXCEPTING AND RESERVING all the undivided two-fifths
interest in all the oil and gas rights, together with all other
minerals in and underlying the [Property].
BEING the same tract of land conveyed by William H. Mason,
Single, to William F. Boyer, by deed dated March 5, 1947 ….
1957 Deed at 2 (emphasis added).
The Maxons did not own an undivided 2/5 interest “in all the oil and
gas rights.” Rather, they owned a 1/10 interest in the right to oil and gas
underlying the Property. However, an undivided 2/5 of “all the oil and gas
rights” had been excepted and reserved by William F. Boyers in the 1947
Deed. Because the Maxons owned less than 2/5 of all oil and gas rights, we
conclude that the exception and reservation set forth in the 1957 Deed
clearly refers to the 2/5 interest excepted and reserved by William F. Boyers
in the 1947 Deed. No other interpretation gives effect to the language of
the 1957 Deed.
Therefore, by the 1957 Deed, the Maxons conveyed to the Association
their undivided 9/10 interest in the surface of the Property, and an undivided
1/10 interest in the right to oil and gas underlying the Property. William F.
Boyers continued to own the undivided 2/5 interest in all rights to oil and
gas underlying the Property, which he had previously excepted and reserved
in the 1947 Deed.
- 14 -
J-A26044-16
On July 10, 2014, McCormick, as President of the Association,
executed the Quit Claim Deed, purportedly conveying to Boyers, Strosnider
and Haines, as tenants in common,
ALL [the Association’s] right, title, and interest in and to the oil
and gas rights within and underlying all [the Property] situate in
Perry Township, Greene County, Pennsylvania ….
…
BEING the same tract of land conveyed to [the Association], by
Deed of John B. Maxon and Mary L. Maxon, dated January 15,
1957 and recorded March 1, 1957 in the Office of the Recorder
of Deeds for Greene County, Pennsylvania in Deed Book [Vol.]
492, Page 285.
The purpose of this quitclaim deed is to relinquish any possible
oil, gas and mineral interests held by Grantor in said property to
[the Association] and is therefore exempt from transfer tax.
Quit Claim Deed at 1-2.
“[A] quit-claim deed is one which purports to convey, and is
understood to convey, nothing more than the interest or estate of which the
grantor is seised or possessed, if any, at the time.” Stewart v. Chernicky,
266 A.2d 259, 267 (Pa. 1970) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In its
Opinion, the trial court addressed the validity of the Quit Claim Deed as
follows:
Where a deed was given on behalf of the corporation, in the
absence of requisite approval under the corporation’s
organization documents, the transaction is void and the land
must be reconveyed. Scientific Living, Inc. v. Hohensee, 270
A.2d 216, 220-221 (Pa. 1970). Upon review of the oral
arguments, Association Bylaws Section 5(d) and 15 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 5506(a)[,] ... the [Quit Claim Deed] is not binding against the
Association because it lacks proper approval by the Association’s
- 15 -
J-A26044-16
board of directors and members. We therefore cancel the deed
and declare it null and void.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/18/16, at 2-3 (unnumbered). We agree with and
adopt the trial court’s reasoning and conclusion, with regard to the validity
of the Quit Claim Deed.
Because the Quit Claim Deed is void, the Association continued to own
an undivided 9/10 interest in the surface of the Property, and a 1/10 interest
in the right to oil and gas underlying the Property. Defendants, as William F.
Boyers’s heirs, own an undivided 2/5 interest in the oil and gas underlying
the Property, which he had reserved and excepted in the 1947 Deed.10
Accordingly, the trial court erred as a matter of law when it granted
the Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment, denied Defendants’
Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissed Defendants’
Counterclaim. We therefore reverse the Order of the trial court. We remand
for entry of an Order granting, in part, Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment, and quieting title to (a) Defendants’ undivided 2/5 interest in the
right to oil and gas underlying the Property; and (b) the Association’s
undivided 1/10 interest in the right to oil and gas underlying the Property.
Order reversed. Case remanded with instructions. Superior Court
jurisdiction is relinquished.
10
James C. Mason and Cora B. Fox (or their respective heirs) each continued
to own an undivided 1/20 interest in the surface of the Property, inherited
from Sarah Mason.
- 16 -
J-A26044-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/23/2017
- 17 -