Court Rules That Search For Heirs Of Oil And Gas Estate Deficient
On January 27, 2015, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed an order by the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County in Sisson, et al. v. Stanley, et al. The trial court’s order allowed the heirs of Joseph Stanley, who previously reserved all the oil and gas under a tract of land in 1953, to open a default judgment from an action to quiet title.
One of the three issues in this case was whether the lower court should have granted a petition to open a default judgment because of an insufficient search under Pa.R.C.P. 430 due to additional evidence being presented by the ‘after-found’ heirs, when the lower court already determined the Appellants conducted a sufficient good-faith investigated based upon Appellants’ affidavit and a hearing in according with Pa.R.C.P. 430. The Superior Court held that the lower court correctly granted such petition because the heirs did not receive proper service of process. Rule 430(a) provides that motions for service, including service by publication, shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating the nature and extent of the investigation which has been made to determine the whereabouts of the defendant and the reasons why service cannot be made. Due process of law requires an adequate investigation for interested parties and service of process be reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprised interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.
In this case, the court found the affidavit to be facially deficient for several reasons and granted the petition to open the default judgment. First, the affidavit indicated that the appellant searched the Recorder of Deeds office and not the Register of Wills office. The court stated that if the appellant searched the records at the Register of Wills office, he would have found the will of Joseph Stanley and identified his twelve heirs. Second, the affidavit indicated that the appellant did not consider that some of Joseph Stanley’s heirs could have moved. The court stated that if the appellant would have searched the local newspaper obituaries, he would have discovered that some the of heirs moved to the neighboring county. Finally, the court indicated that the appellant’s failure to identify which Internet sites he visited or what search he ran provided a basis that he did not exercise due diligence and good faith in his efforts to locate the heirs. It reasoned that given the ease of identifying and using sophisticated Internet services to trace ancestry and family history, it is inconceivable that the plaintiff, employing good faith efforts, was unable to locate a single heir.
Given the sparse information included in the affidavit, and the seeming ease with the plaintiff could and should have located interested parties, the court affirmed the lower court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s investigation was deficient.