Battisti v. Beaver County Tax Claim Bureau
105 A.3d 76
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Taxpayer Eileen Battisti appeals a trial court order refusing to set aside an upset tax sale of her home for a $234.72 2009 tax delinquency.
- She paid $3,990.03 in September 2010, believing it satisfied all 2009 real estate taxes; the Bureau applied part of that payment to 2008 shortfall, creating the 2009 shortfall.
- The Tax Claim Bureau did not inform Battisti of a Section 603 installment option after she paid more than 25% of the amount due.
- The Bureau proceeded with a September 2010 upset sale despite the 2009 shortfall remaining unpaid by Battisti.
- The Property was sold on September 12, 2011 for $113,000 after notices of sale in 2011.
- This Court previously held that judgment on the pleadings was inappropriate in tax sale proceedings and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Bureau violated Section 603 by not offering an installment plan | Battisti argues Bureau failed to offer 603 plan after 25% payment. | Bidder/Bureau contends notices complied with statutory requirements. | Yes; the Bureau failed to offer installment plan, requiring reversal. |
| Whether due process was violated by lack of clear notice and confusing notices | Notices were faulty, confusing, and did not inform of remaining balance. | Notices satisfied statutory notice requirements; sale proper. | Yes; due process was violated; notices were problematic and insufficient. |
| Whether failure to offer installment plan requires setting aside sale | Without installment option, sale should be set aside despite compliance with notice. | Sale would be upheld if notices were proper and statute complied. | Yes; failure to offer installment plan warrants setting aside the sale. |
Key Cases Cited
- Battisti v. Tax Claim Bureau of Beaver County, 76 A.3d 111 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013) (remanded for evidentiary hearing; judgment on pleadings inappropriate in tax sales)
- Moore v. Keller, 98 A.3d 1 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014) (installment plan option required when 25% paid and equitable owner)
- Reilly v. Susquehanna Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 904 A.2d 49 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (owner must be informed of installment option after 25% payment)
- York v. Roach, 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 58 (Pa.Cmwlth.1994) (due process concerns in tax sale notices)
- Darden v. Montgomery Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 629 A.2d 321 (Pa.Cmwlth.1993) (requirement to notify of the right to installment plan after 25% paid)
- Smith v. Tax Claim Bureau of Pike County, 834 A.2d 1247 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (statutory compliance and due process considerations in tax sales)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. Supreme Court 2006) (due process requires adequate notice before property takings for taxes)