granting clause in Pennsylvania

2015Framing our analysis within the context of the foregoing standards, and finding no trial court error of law or abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in favor of Landowners. -4- J-S04017-15 In a case where we found that an easement by implication at severance of title did exist over an appellant-landowner’s property, we explained the following relevant principles: In Burns Manufacturing v. Boehm, 467 Pa. 307, 313-14 , 356 A.2d 763, 767 (1976), our Supreme Court stated: It has long been held in this Commonwealth that although the language of a granting clause does not contain

2015Framing our analysis within the context of the foregoing standards, and finding no trial court error of law or abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in favor of Landowners. -4- J-S04017-15 In a case where we found that an easement by implication at severance of title did exist over an appellant-landowner’s property, we explained the following relevant principles: In Burns Manufacturing v. Boehm, 467 Pa. 307, 313-14 , 356 A.2d 763, 767 (1976), our Supreme Court stated: It has long been held in this Commonwealth that although the language of a granting clause does not contain

2015The Pennsylvania Supreme Court defined the traditional test as follows: It has long been held in this Conunonwealth that although the language of a granting clause does not contain an express reservation of an easement in favor of the granter, such an interest may be reserved by implication, and this is notwithstanding that the easement is not essential for the beneficial use of the property..., The circumstances which will give rise to an impliedly reserved easement have been concisely put by Chief Justice Horace Stern speaking for the Court in Tosh v. Witts [ 381 Pa. 255 , 113 A.2d 226 (1955

2015The Pennsylvania Supreme Court defined the traditional test as follows: It has long been held in this Conunonwealth that although the language of a granting clause does not contain an express reservation of an easement in favor of the granter, such an interest may be reserved by implication, and this is notwithstanding that the easement is not essential for the beneficial use of the property..., The circumstances which will give rise to an impliedly reserved easement have been concisely put by Chief Justice Horace Stern speaking for the Court in Tosh v. Witts [ 381 Pa. 255 , 113 A.2d 226 (1955

2022The zoning board’s function “is to determine that such specific facts, circumstances and conditions exist which comply with the standards of the ordinance and merit the granting of the exception.” Broussard II, 907 A.2d at 499 (citing Kotzin v. Plymouth Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, 149 A.2d 116, 118 (Pa. 1959)).

2020When a landowner applies to municipal authorities for a special exception, the zoning board’s function ‘is to determine that such specific facts, circumstances and conditions exist which comply with the standards of the ordinance and merit the granting of the exception.’ Kotzin, . . . 149 A.2d at 118 .

2017See, e.g., Tosh v. Witts, 381 Pa. 255, 258 , 113 A.2d 226 (1955); Philadelphia Steel Abrasive Co. v. Gedicke Sons, 343 Pa. 524, 528 , 23 A.2d 490 (1942); Nauman v. Treen Box Co., 280 Pa. 97, 100 , 124 A. 349 (1924); Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Wallace, 219 Pa. 457, 459 , 68 A. 1021 (1908); Kieffer v. Imhoff, 26 Pa. 438, 443 (1856).

1976It has long been held in this Commonwealth that although the language of a granting clause does not contain an express reservation of an easement in favor of the grantor, such an interest may be reserved by implication, and this is so notwithstanding that the ease *314 ment is not essential for the beneficial use of the property. 4 See, e. g., Tosh v. Witts, 381 Pa. 255, 258 , 113 A.2d 226 (1955); Philadelphia Steel Abrasive Co. v. Gedicke Sons, 343 Pa. 524, 528 , 23 A.2d 490 (1942); Nauman v. Treen Box Co., 280 Pa. 97, 100 , 124 A. 349 (1924); Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Wallace, 219 Pa. 457, 459

2022Relative to whether the fee was reasonable, this Court explained: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Mastrangelo v. Buckley, . . . 250 A.2d 447 ([Pa.] 1969), defined a license fee as follows: A license fee is a sum assessed for the granting of a privilege.

2019See Mastrangelo v. Buckley, 250 A.2d 447, 464 (Pa. 1969) (“A license fee is a sum assessed for the granting of a privilege.”); T.R. at 68 (Appellant claiming that the City’s refusal to issue rental licenses to him has “[denied] him the right to collect rental income from his tenants.”). 5 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of Philadelphia : : v. : No. 95 C.D. 2018 : Stephen Frempong-Atuahene, : Appellant : ORDER AND NOW, this 18th day of January, 2019, Appellant Stephen Frempong- Atuahene’s appeal pertaining to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County’s December 18, 2017, o

2016Id. (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

2016The function of the [ZBA] when an application for an exception is made is to determine that such specific facts, circumstances and conditions exist which comply with the standards of the ordinance and merit the granting of the exception. 16 Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 831 A.2d 764, 769 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), aff’d, 907 A.2d 494 (Pa. 2006) (citation omitted) (quoting Kotzin v. Plymouth Twp.

2020“Where an owner of land subjects part of it to an open, visible, permanent and continuous servitude or easement in favor of another part and then aliens either, the purchaser -6- J-A07004-20 takes subject to the burden or the benefit as the case may be, and this [is] irrespective of whether or not the easement constituted a necessary right of way.” Id. at 448 (ellipsis and original brackets omitted), quoting Burns Mfg. v. Boehm, 356 A.2d 763, 767 (Pa. 1976), citing Tosh v. Witts, 113 A.2d 226, 228 (Pa. 1955).5 “An easement by implication could have arisen only at the time at which ownership of

2015In Bucciarelli v. DeLisa, 691 A.2d 446 (Pa. 1997), our Supreme Court noted: The traditional test for implied easement at severance of title is set out in Burns Manufacturing v. Boehm, 356 A.2d 763, 767 (Pa. 1976): It has long been held in this Commonwealth that although the language of a granting clause does not contain an express reservation of an easement in favor of the grantor, such an interest may be reserved by implication, and this is so notwithstanding that the easement is not essential for the beneficial use of the property. . . .

1993Commonwealth v. Morris, 493 Pa. 164, 175 , 425 A.2d 715, 720 (1981); Commonwealth v. Riggins, 374 Pa.Super. 243, 251 , 542 A.2d 1004, 1008 (1988); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 361 Pa.Super. 1, 14-15 , 521 A.2d 442, 449-450 (1987).

1993Commonwealth v. Morris, 493 Pa. 164, 175 , 425 A.2d 715, 720 (1981); Commonwealth v. Riggins, 374 Pa.Super. 243, 251 , 542 A.2d 1004, 1008 (1988); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 361 Pa.Super. 1, 14-15 , 521 A.2d 442, 449-450 (1987).

1993Commonwealth v. Morris, 493 Pa. 164, 175 , 425 A.2d 715, 720 (1981); Commonwealth v. Riggins, 374 Pa.Super. 243, 251 , 542 A.2d 1004, 1008 (1988); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 361 Pa.Super. 1, 14-15 , 521 A.2d 442, 449-450 (1987).

1993Commonwealth v. Morris, 493 Pa. 164, 175 , 425 A.2d 715, 720 (1981); Commonwealth v. Riggins, 374 Pa.Super. 243, 251 , 542 A.2d 1004, 1008 (1988); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 361 Pa.Super. 1, 14-15 , 521 A.2d 442, 449-450 (1987).

1993Commonwealth v. Morris, 493 Pa. 164, 175 , 425 A.2d 715, 720 (1981); Commonwealth v. Riggins, 374 Pa.Super. 243, 251 , 542 A.2d 1004, 1008 (1988); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 361 Pa.Super. 1, 14-15 , 521 A.2d 442, 449-450 (1987).

1993Commonwealth v. Morris, 493 Pa. 164, 175 , 425 A.2d 715, 720 (1981); Commonwealth v. Riggins, 374 Pa.Super. 243, 251 , 542 A.2d 1004, 1008 (1988); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 361 Pa.Super. 1, 14-15 , 521 A.2d 442, 449-450 (1987).

1990Hook v. Athens Area School District, 50 Pa.Cmwlth.Ct. 420, 413 A.2d 1151, 1153 (1980).

1990Hook v. Athens Area School District, 50 Pa.Cmwlth.Ct. 420, 413 A.2d 1151, 1153 (1980).

1970The Court in exercise of its discretion will permit one accused to substitute a plea of not guilty and have a trial if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” [citations omitted] 274 U. S. at 223, 224 , 47 S. Ct. at 583 , 71 L.

1970The Court in exercise of its discretion will permit one accused to substitute a plea of not guilty and have a trial if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” [citations omitted] 274 U. S. at 223, 224 , 47 S. Ct. at 583 , 71 L.

2022The zoning board’s function “is to determine that such specific facts, circumstances and conditions exist which comply with the standards of the ordinance and merit the granting of the exception.” Broussard II, 907 A.2d at 499 (citing Kotzin v. Plymouth Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, 149 A.2d 116, 118 (Pa. 1959)).

2016The function of the [ZBA] when an application for an exception is made is to determine that such specific facts, circumstances and conditions exist which comply with the standards of the ordinance and merit the granting of the exception. 16 Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 831 A.2d 764, 769 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), aff’d, 907 A.2d 494 (Pa. 2006) (citation omitted) (quoting Kotzin v. Plymouth Twp.

2025Id. - 10 - J-A22032-24 modify the plain meaning under the guise of interpretation.” Stephan v. Waldron Elec.

2015Within the oil and gas industry, oil and gas leases generally contain several key provisions, including the granting clause, which initially conveys to the lessee the right to drill for and produce oil or gas from the property; the habendum clause, which is used to fix the ultimate duration of the lease; the royalty clause; and the terms of surrender. * * * Typically ... the habendum clause in an oil and gas lease provides that a lease will remain in effect for as long as oil or gas is produced “in paying quantities.” Traditionally, use of the term “in paying quantities” in a habendum clause o

2020“Where an owner of land subjects part of it to an open, visible, permanent and continuous servitude or easement in favor of another part and then aliens either, the purchaser -6- J-A07004-20 takes subject to the burden or the benefit as the case may be, and this [is] irrespective of whether or not the easement constituted a necessary right of way.” Id. at 448 (ellipsis and original brackets omitted), quoting Burns Mfg. v. Boehm, 356 A.2d 763, 767 (Pa. 1976), citing Tosh v. Witts, 113 A.2d 226, 228 (Pa. 1955).5 “An easement by implication could have arisen only at the time at which ownership of

2019Daddona v. Thorpe, 749 A.2d 475, 480 (Pa. Super. 2000) (citation omitted). -4- J-S26003-19 The circumstances which will give rise to an impliedly reserved easement [are]: where an owner of land subjects part of it to an open, visible, permanent and continuous servitude or easement in favor of another part and then aliens either, the purchaser takes subject to the burden of the benefit as the case may be, and this is irrespective of whether or not the easement constituted a necessary right of way.

2017See Brookbank, 131 A.2d at 159-61.

2017In Fleck v. Universal-Cyclops Steel Corp., the Supreme Court held the interest conveyed was an easement/right-of-way even though the deed conveying the 6 The 1852 instrument in Quarry stated that the grantor "by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the said the Chester Valley Rail Road Company, their successors and assigns, the right, liberty, and privilege of entering upon and occupying the land belonging to me ... and also the right of using, occupying. and enjoying the said land perpetually, for all the uses and purposes convenient or necessary for a Rail Road." Q

2016Id. at 303, 309-313 .

2015Additionally, in conjunction with the leasing and habendum clauses, “leases also began to incorporate ‘delayed rental’ clauses, which relieved the lessee of the obligation to develop the property immediately upon entering into an agreement.” Hite v. Falcon Partners, 13 A.3d 942, 946 (Pa.Super.2011).