KEM Res., LP v. Deer Park Lumber, Inc., 310 A.3d 142 (Pa. S. Ct. February 21, 2024) (Mundy, J.).
KEM Resources, LP and Ryvamat, Inc. each own an undivided fifty percent interest in the oil, gas, and mineral rights of a property located in Wyoming County. Ryvamat entered a paid-up gas lease with Unit Petroleum covering the entirety of the property’s oil and gas rights, including the fifty percent owned by KEM, receiving $12,644,512.00 as payment. KEM’s predecessors in interest filed an action against Ryvamat, which included a claim for an accounting requesting Ryvamat account for the portion of the lease payment it received attributable to KEM’s fifty percent interest. Ryvamat argues KEM’s action is barred by the statute of limitations. The Superior Court disagreed and found that the applicable statute of limitations for KEM’s accounting claim is six years, and the original complaint was timely filed. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the Superior Court and, thus, affirm its holding.
The primary issue before this Court is whether KEM filed its accounting claim within the applicable statute of limitations. In order to answer that question, we must first determine the nature of KEM’s accounting claim. After a careful review of KEM’s Second Amended Complaint, we find that the Superior Court correctly held that KEM’s accounting claim is properly considered a statutory claim for an accounting between co-tenants under Section 101.
We must therefore look to our current statutes of limitations to determine the limitations period for an action brought pursuant to Section 101.
A review of our current statutes of limitations for civil actions, set forth in Chapter 55 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 5521-5539, reveals that they do not address an action between co-tenants of real property for an accounting for rents received from the property.
As no other statute of limitations period applies to an action under Section 101, the statute of limitations period applicable to an action between co-tenants for an accounting is the catch-all six-year statute of Section 5527. KEM’s predecessors in interest filed the initial complaint in this matter on July 18, 2014, six years minus three days from the date Ryvamat received the Lease payment from Unit Petroleum. Thus, KEM filed its accounting claim within the statute of limitations for a claim under Section 101.
We conclude KEM’s accounting claim is properly construed as a statutory claim for an accounting between co-tenants under Section 101. We further find that the statute of limitations for such a claim is six years. The holding of the Superior Court is affirmed.
