Lodge v. Hoyt

1

RICHARD WORTHINGTON LODGE, JOHN STERLING LODGE, AND MARIE-LOUISE LODGE v. WILLIAM HOYT, MARK HOYT, EDWARD C. HOYT, THEODORE R. HOYT, AND GEORGE HOYT, COMPRISING THE FIRM OF HOYT BROTHERS, MARY HOYT, ANNA A. HOYT, CORDELIA IDA HOYT, AND ALL THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNS, HOYT ROYALTY, LLC, AND MICHAEL J. SOLOMON AND LORI A. SOLOMON, HOYT ROYALTY, LLC, TRUSTEES OF THE MARGARET E. HAIGHT TRUST, THOMAS PEDDER BISPHAM, SYDNEY WYNNE WOODWARD, GERTRUDE WEBER, JOHN WEDEL, KAREN ELITHIA WEDEL, ANN HOYT WEBER, CAROLINE HOKE WEBER, VIRGINIA FOOTE HAGGERTY, NATHAN CLARK SWEET, JOHN WEBER SWEET, AND ALL OTHER UNKNOWN HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNS OF WILLIAM HOYT, THEODORE R. HOYT, AND GEORGE S. HOYT, INDIVIDUALLY, JOINTLY, AND/OR TRADING AS HOYT BROTHERS v. RICHARD WORTHINGTON LODGE, JOHN STERLING LODGE, MARIE-LOUISE LODGE, MICHAEL J. SOLOMON AND LORI A. SOLOMON

APPEAL OF: HOYT ROYALTY, LLC, TRUSTEES OF THE MARGARET E. HAIGHT TRUST, THOMAS PEDDER BISPHAM, SYDNEY WYNNE WOODWARD, GERTRUDE WEBER, JOHN WEDEL, KAREN ELITHIA WEDEL, ANN HOYT WEBER, CAROLINE HOKE WEBER, VIRGINIA FOOTE HAGGERTY, NATHAN CLARK SWEET, JOHN WEBER SWEET, AND ALL OTHER UNKNOWN HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNS OF WILLIAM HOYT, THEODORE R. HOYT, AND GEORGE S. HOYT, INDIVIDUALLY, JOINTLY, AND/OR TRADING AS HOYT BROTHERS

RICHARD WORTHINGTON LODGE, JOHN STERLING LODGE, AND MARIE-LOUISE LODGE v. WILLIAM HOYT, MARK HOYT, EDWARD C. HOYT, THEODORE R. HOYT, AND GEORGE HOYT, COMPRISING THE FIRM OF HOYT BROTHERS, MARY HOYT, ANNA A. HOYT, CORDELIA IDA HOYT, AND ALL THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNS, HOYT ROYALTY, LLC, AND MICHAEL J. SOLOMON AND LORI A. SOLOMON, HOYT ROYALTY, LLC, TRUSTEES OF THE MARGARET E. HAIGHT TRUST, THOMAS PEDDER BISPHAM, SYDNEY WYNNE WOODWARD, GERTRUDE WEBER, JOHN WEDEL, KAREN ELITHIA WEDEL, ANN HOYT WEBER, CAROLINE HOKE WEBER, VIRGINIA FOOTE HAGGERTY, NATHAN CLARK SWEET, JOHN WEBER SWEET, AND ALL OTHER UNKNOWN HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNS OF WILLIAM HOYT, THEODORE R. HOYT, AND GEORGE S. HOYT, INDIVIDUALLY, JOINTLY, AND/OR TRADING AS HOYT BROTHERS v. RICHARD WORTHINGTON LODGE, JOHN STERLING LODGE, MARIE-LOUISE LODGE, MICHAEL J. SOLOMON AND LORI A. SOLOMON

APPEAL OF: RICHARD WORTHINGTON LODGE, JOHN STERLING LODGE, AND MARIE-LOUISE LODGE

Nos. 1294 MDA 2022, 1363 MDA 2022

Nos. J-A20043-23, J-A20044-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

November 28, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered August 15, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Sullivan County Civil Division at No(s): 2008CV-321

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

STEVENS, P.J.E.

Hoyt Royalty, LLC, Trustees of the Margaret E. Haight Trust Thomas Pedder Bispham, Sydney Wynne Woodward, Gertrude Weber, John Wedel, Karen Elithia Wedel, Ann Hoyt Weber, Caroline Hoke Weber, Virginia Foote Haggerty, Nathan Clark Sweet and John Weber Sweet (collectively "Hoyt Appellants") filed an appeal to challenge the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Michael J. Solomon and Lori Solomon (hereinafter Appellees). Richard Worthington Lodge, John Sterling Lodge, and Marie-Louise Lodge (collectively "the Lodge Appellants") filed a separate appeal challenging the same order.^[1] After careful review, we reverse the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings.

By way of background, in an April 22, 1893 deed, William Hoyt, Mark Hoyt, Edward C. Hoyt, Theodore R. Hoyt, and George S. Hoyt ("Hoyt Brothers") along with Mary Hoyt, wife of William Hoyt, Ann A. Hoyt, wife of Mark Hoyt, and Cordelia Ida Hoyt, wife of Edward C. Hoyt (collectively the "Hoyts") conveyed a vast amount of real property in Sullivan County to Union Tanning Company. However, in the same deed, the Hoyts reserved the oil, gas, and mineral rights to such property. The Hoyt Appellants have claimed that they own the subsurface rights to 20,916 acres of land.

In a deed dated February 4, 2011, the Lodge Appellants acquired property containing 303.63 acres (identified as Sullivan County Tax Parcel Number 06-076-002) from the Richard S. Lodge Revocable Trust and the Marie-Gay Lodge Revocable Trust. The Lodge Appellants asserted that the 303.63 acre property was described in a previous deed as three separate parcels with different chains of title. Amended Complaint, at 2. The Lodge Appellants admitted that one of the parcels (approximately 111 acres in size) was subject to the Hoyts' oil, gas, and mineral reservation set forth in their 1893 deed. Amended Complaint, at 2-3.

On November 21, 2008, the Lodge Appellants filed a quiet title action against the Hoyts and their heirs, successors, and assigns. Pursuant to the trial court's July 24, 2013 order, the Lodge Appellants filed an amended complaint on September 3, 2013 in order to include additional defendants in its quiet title action, including Appellant Hoyt Royalty, LLC (the successor to the Hoyts).^[2] With respect to Appellant Hoyt Royalty, LLC and all other heirs, successors, and assigns of the Hoyts (collectively, the "Hoyt Appellants"), the Lodge Appellants asserted that the Hoyt Appellants' reservation of oil, gas, and mineral rights in the 1893 deed was invalid and had been cancelled with respect to the 111-acre parcel.

The Lodge Appellants' amended complaint also named Appellees (the Solomons) as defendants as Appellees had asserted an interest in the subsurface estate of Lodge Appellants' entire 303.63-acre property after this quiet title action had commenced. Appellees cited to a May 28, 1981 Tax Claim Deed in which the Sullivan County Tax Claim Bureau purported to convey the subsurface estate on Parcel "MR-6-3" to Appellees. Amended Complaint, at 5. The Tax Claim Deed refers to the exception in the "deed from William Hoyt and others to the Union Tanning Company dated April 22, 1893" and describes the property as approximately 313 acres. Amended Complaint at 3.

The Lodge Appellants specifically argued that Appellees have no claim to the subsurface rights of their 303.63 acreage parcel as Appellees' May 1981 Tax Claim deed was void. The Lodge Appellants cited to the records for the tax sale underlying the Tax Claim Deed which indicated that the premises sold included "80 acres of mineral rights in Elkland Township's Jesse Parker Warrant"; in comparison, the Lodge Appellants emphasized that their 303.63-acre property at Parcel Number 06-076-002 falls within Elkland Township's David Turner Warrant. Amended Complaint, at 5.

Thus, the Lodge Appellants argued that the Tax Deed erroneously described the taxed and sold property as 313 acres in the David Turner Warrant instead of 80 acres in in the Jesse Parker Warrant. As such, the Lodge Appellants argued that Appellees "may own the oil, gas, and mineral rights in 80 acres located in the Jesse Parker Warrant, but they do not hold or own title to the oil, gas, or mineral rights in any part of the subject property [belonging to the Lodge Appellants]." Amended Complaint, at 7.

In addition, the Lodge Appellants argued that notice of the tax sale for Sullivan County Tax Parcel MR-6-3 ("80 acres in Jesse Parker") was not provided to their predecessors in title nor was Appellees' Tax Claim Deed listed in the Sullivan County grantor indexes under the Hoyt Appellants.

On November 7, 2013, Appellees filed an Answer and New Matter to the Amended Complaint, asserting affirmative defenses which included a claim that the quiet title action was barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Appellees did not make any counterclaim against the Lodge Appellants or file a cross-claim against the Hoyt Appellants.

On November 20, 2013, the Hoyt Appellants filed an Answer and New Matter to the Amended Complaint as well as a Counterclaims and Cross-Claim, which included three counts: 1) quiet title, 2) declaratory judgment, and 3) slander of title. The Hoyt Appellants' Counterclaim and Cross-Claim added multiple plaintiffs^[3] who "are known living heirs, successors and/or assigns of the Hoyts who have not assigned and transferred their rights, title, and interests to Hoyt Royalty."^[4]

With respect to the Appellees' claims, the Hoyt Appellants agreed with the Lodge Appellants that "to the extent that [the] 1981 Solomon Tax Deed sought to convey the Hoyt Sullivan County Subsurface Estate in, on, and under the Subject property, which is expressly denied, any such tax sale and tax title derived therefrom is void and invalid as a matter of law." Hoyt Appellants' Answer, Cross-Claim, and Counterclaim, at 36-37. The Hoyt Appellants also argued that the only tracts identified in the Hoyts' 1893 Deed Exception/Reservation are from warrants other than the Jesse Parker warrant.

On December 23, 2013, Appellees filed a reply to the Hoyt Appellants' claims and pled as new matter several affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations.

On October 7, 2021, Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to bar both the Hoyt Appellants' and Lodge Appellants' quiet title actions with a statute of limitations defense. On November 29, 2022, the Lodge Appellants filed an Answer along with a countermotion for summary judgment, asking the trial court to declare that Appellees' Tax Claim Deed is void ab initio and to bar Appellees from asserting any right, lien, title or interest in the subsurface rights at issue. On March 23, 2022, the Hoyt Appellants filed its Answer and countermotion for partial summary judgment, raising the same claim against Appellees based on its contention that Appellees' Tax Claim Deed was void. The Hoyt Appellants also asked the trial court to enter summary judgment in its favor against the Lodge Appellants as to the parties' competing claims for quiet title and declaratory judgment.

In its countermotion for partial summary judgment,...