Chapman, M. v. Chevron Appalachia
This text of Chapman, M. v. Chevron Appalachia (Chapman, M. v. Chevron Appalachia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37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-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Chapman, M. v. Chevron Appalachia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-m-v-chevron-appalachia-pasuperct-2016.