Battisti v. Tax Claim Bureau of Beaver County
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 332
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Eileen Battisti paid her 2008 school tax payment six days late, leaving a $6.30 interest shortfall; Tax Claim Bureau recorded and later assessed that unpaid interest plus accumulating costs and interest.
- Battisti paid 2009 taxes (applied to 2009), but a $234.72 balance remained attributable to the 2008 interest/costs; property at 118 Rosewood Drive was sold at an upset tax sale to S.P. Lewis on September 12, 2011.
- Battisti filed a petition under Section 607 of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law to set aside the upset sale, alleging lack of notice of (a) the $6.30 shortfall and (b) the sale; purchasers and Tax Claim Bureau answered.
- Purchaser moved for judgment on the pleadings; the trial court granted that motion and dismissed Battisti’s objections.
- On appeal, the Commonwealth Court held that Rule 1034 judgment-on-the-pleadings procedure does not apply to Section 607 petitions; the petition raised factual disputes on notice/due process and thus an evidentiary hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Battisti's Argument | Purchaser/Tax Claim Bureau's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Battisti was deprived of property without due process (lack of hearing/notice) | Battisti: she lacked notice of the $6.30 unpaid interest and of the upset sale; small debt vs. home value made lack of process especially problematic | Purchaser: procedural defects in Battisti’s appellate filings and pleadings; implied that required notices were given and no hearing was required | Court: Trial court erred; due process requires hearing when factual disputes about notice exist — remand for evidentiary hearing |
| Whether judgment on the pleadings was proper under Pa. R.C.P. 1034 in a Section 607 petition | Battisti: Section 607 petition is not governed by Rules of Civil Procedure; she is entitled to hearing and pleadings were not closed | Purchaser: moved for judgment on the pleadings and relied on pleadings as closed | Court: Rule 1034 does not apply to Section 607 petitions; “pleadings” as defined in Pa. R.C.P. do not include Section 607 petitions; parties filed additional pleadings after the motion, so motion was untimely/moot |
| Whether Tax Claim Bureau properly applied payments (allocation) and provided adequate invoices/notice of the small unpaid interest | Battisti: Bureau never sent explicit invoice for $6.30 and should have applied later payments to 2008 balance before 2009 taxes; she lacked notice of outstanding interest/costs | Respondents: payments did not satisfy full amount; statutory procedures were followed | Court: Because facts are disputed about notice and allocation, the Tax Claim Bureau bears burden to prove strict compliance; matter remanded for hearing |
| Whether sale is invalid where only interest and costs (not tax principal) remained | Battisti: upset sale improper because underlying taxes were paid and only interest/costs remained; constitutional/equal protection issues raised (redemption differences) | Respondents: statutory authority supports upset sale for unpaid balances including interest/costs; procedural defenses | Court: Did not decide on merits due to remand — factual and procedural issues require evidentiary hearing; other constitutional claims not addressed given disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Fawber v. Dauphin County Tax Claim Bureau, 543 A.2d 1288 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (tax sale notice/challenge may proceed under statutory petition or equity)
- Hoover v. Bucks County Tax Claim Bureau, 405 A.2d 562 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (courts of equity may inquire into adequacy of notice even after confirmation)
- Commonwealth v. 605 University Drive, 61 A.3d 1048 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (statutory proceedings are exclusive means to resolve certain disputes; Rules of Civil Procedure may not apply)
- In re Tax Sale Held September 10, 2003, by the Tax Claim Bureau of the County of Lackawanna, 859 A.2d 15 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (Pa. R.C.P. generally inapplicable to tax sale statutory proceedings)
- Geier v. Tax Claim Bureau of Schuylkill County, 588 A.2d 480 (Pa. 1991) (due process requires adequate notice/opportunity to be heard before forfeiture of property for taxes)
- Michener v. Montgomery County Tax Claim Bureau, 671 A.2d 285 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (once taxpayer makes prima facie challenge, bureau must prove strict compliance with notice provisions)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice and opportunity to be heard are fundamentals of due process)
- In re Upset Sale, Tax Claim Bureau of Montgomery County, 272 A.2d 186 (Pa. Super. 1970) (hearing required where factual questions raised to prevent fraud)
- Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Castegnaro, 772 A.2d 456 (Pa. 2001) (standard of review for judgment on the pleadings)
- Lindstrom v. City of Corry, 763 A.2d 394 (Pa. 2000) (plenary scope of appellate review)