Chapman, M. v. Chevron Appalachia ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • J-A16006-16
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
    MONTY CLAIR CHAPMAN, TRUSTEE OF            :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    THE MONTY CLAIR CHAPMAN TRUST              :           PENNSYLVANIA
    AGREEMENT DATED AUGUST 17, 2000,           :
    AND CONNIE A. CHAPMAN,                     :
    :
    Appellants                :
    :
    v.                    :
    :
    CHEVRON APPALACHIA, LLC,                   :
    :
    Appellee                 :     No. 1201 WDA 2015
    Appeal from the Order Entered July 14, 2015
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County
    Civil Division at No(s): 902 CD 2014
    BEFORE:     SHOGAN, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
    DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED: AUGUST 29, 2016
    Because the trial court erred in sustaining the preliminary objections in
    the nature of a demurrer filed by Chevron Appalachia, LLC (“Chevron”), I
    respectfully dissent and offer the following analysis.
    “The question presented by the demurrer is whether, on the facts
    averred, the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible. Where any
    doubt exists as to whether a demurrer should be sustained, it should be
    resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer.” Sullivan v. Chartwell Inv.
    Partners, LP, 
    873 A.2d 710
    , 714 (Pa. Super. 2005).
    Instantly, there is no dispute that in November 2012, a month after
    the lease purportedly expired, Chevron recorded both leases. The effect of
    that recording, however, is in dispute.        Here, the trial court sustained
    *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-A16006-16
    Chevron’s preliminary objection, in part, based on the conclusion that “even
    if [it] were to decide that [Chevron’s] rec[ording] of the leases was a
    manifestation of assent, such a manifestation would have had no effect
    because the period to accept the offer had expired.” Trial Court Opinion,
    7/14/2015, at 3.     That may be true; however, at this juncture, it is
    premature to make that determination. What effect, if any, the recording of
    the leases had is the type of issue that warrants, at a minimum, the
    opportunity to conduct discovery.     Accordingly, the trial court erred in
    sustaining Chevron’s preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1201 WDA 2015

Filed Date: 8/29/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/29/2016