This document summarizes a court case regarding a dispute over mineral rights. It discusses: 1) Northern Forests II acquired land in 1987 and later filed a quiet title action (QTA) against former owners, heirs, and assigns, claiming adverse possession of minerals and timber. 2) The judgment was later stricken for failing to join indispensable parties (heirs and assigns) and failing to make proper service, as notice by publication of "heirs and assigns" is not sufficient. 3) The Supreme Court declined to hear the case but amended rules to allow notice by publication of former owners and heirs/assigns, creating a conflict with precedent requiring individual naming of interested parties.

1. Lisa C. McManus, VP & General Counsel
Pennsylvania General Energy Company, LLC

2. • Northern Forests II acquired 3,665 surface acres June
24, 1987
• 1989 filed QTA against former owners of OGMs and
heirs and assigns
• Break in title in court records based on mistakes in
names and corporate mergers
• Based on adverse possession of minerals and timber
• Served notice by publication
• 2012/13 Petition to Open/Strike for lack of
indispensable parties and inadequacy of diligence and
affidavit in support of motion to serve notice by
publication

3. • Judgment stricken
• Improper service prevented the court from obtaining personal
jurisdiction
• In rem argument was rejected: jurisdiction is still required
• Rejected standing argument as Northern Forests did not have title
any more than the petitioners

4. Affirmed on two grounds:
1. Failure to join indispensable parties
2. Failure to make proper service

5. Failure to Join Indispensable Party
• Non-waivable defect
• Can be raised sua sponte
“Naming a predecessor in title and his ‘heirs and assigns’ is not
reasonably calculated to notify a successor in interest of the
lawsuit. The complaint must name the successor in interest
individually, not merely group him within the category of
‘heirs and assigns’.”

6. Failure to Make Proper Service
Pa. R.C.P. 430:
(a) If service cannot be made under the applicable rule the plaintiff may
move the court for a special order directing the method of service. The
motion 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...
(b)(2) When service is made by publication upon the heirs and assigns of a
named former owner or party in interest, the court may permit
publication against the heirs or assigns generally if it is set forth in the
complaint or an affidavit that they are unknown.
Affidavit “totally failed to describe what efforts he made to
discover the whereabouts of any person holding an interest in
the Property.”

7. What’s the Big Deal?
 Motion to serve by alternative means was facially deficient
 Void judgment is void for all time, so passage of time is irrelevant
 Equitable considerations can’t fix void judgment
 Adverse possession claim was insupportable
 Entry of judgment cannot serve as grounds for adverse possession
BUT

8. Cannot Serve Heirs and Assigns
“Naming a predecessor in title and his ‘heirs and assigns’ is not
reasonably calculated to notify a successor in interest of the lawsuit.
The complaint must name the successor in interest individually, not
merely group him within the category of ‘heirs and assigns’.”
“No matter how exhaustive or diligent the plaintiff’s title search may
be, its failure to join an indispensable party deprives the court of
jurisdiction.”
•What about Rule 430(b)(2)?
•What about DOGA?
•What about record title?
Judgment susceptible to attack decades later
by long-lost descendants.

9. Protection of Due Process Rights
• Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314
(1950) and Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 798
(1983)
• Herder Spring Hunting Club v. Keller, 143 A.3d 358 (Pa. 2016) -
Notice by publication where relevant parties’ interest or
addresses cannot be determined – Court “has not hesitated to
approve of resort to publication as a customary substitute . . .
where it is not reasonably possible or practicable to give more
adequate warning.”
• “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in
any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice
reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise
interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them
an opportunity to present their objections. The notice must be of
such nature as reasonably to convey the required information, and
it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their
appearance.” Mullane.

10. Northern Forests Claims
1. Deed to Keta Gas and Oil Company erroneously indexed as a deed
to Reta Gas and Oil Company
2. Astra Oil and Gas Corp., a prior title holder, failed to file a separate
instrument identifying the change of its corporate name from
Astra Oil and Gas Corp. (“Astra”) to KGA Industries, Inc. (“KGA”)
SO
Search would not have revealed that (1) Keta Realty Co. conveyed its
interest in the Property to Keta Gas and Oil Company, (2) Keta
Gas and Oil Company conveyed its interest to Astra, (3) Astra
changed its name to KGA, and (4) KGA conveyed its interest to
Moore.

11. And the Supreme Court Says…
Declined allocatur, BUT
On November 29 issued Order Amending Rules 410, 430, 1065 &
Adopting Rule 1064 of the Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure that allows
service by publication on named former owner and heirs and assigns
**Conflict now exists between Supreme Court rules and
Superior Court precedent**

12. Takeaways from Northern Forests II
1. No matter how diligent the search for current owners of oil and
gas interests, all parties with an interest must be named
individually;
2. “Heirs and assigns” cannot be served by publication; and,
3. The passage of time is no barrier to opening/striking a judgment
if a party with an interest is not named.

13. Questions?