Bethlehem Area SD v. A.S. Kanofsky
Bethlehem Area SD v. A.S. Kanofsky - 1501 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | May 17, 2017Background
- Kanofsky owned property in Bethlehem assessed for delinquent 2015 school real estate taxes; the District filed a tax claim and a writ of scire facias to reduce the claim to judgment.
- Kanofsky filed a pro se document styled as a "Brief in Response" and a separate "Counter Complaint;" the trial court treated the brief as an Affidavit of Defense and the countercomplaint as improper.
- The District moved for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense under the Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act; the trial court granted the motion and entered judgment for the District for $8,568.70 (with interest), and denied Kanofsky’s counterclaim.
- Kanofsky appealed to this Court and was ordered to file a Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; he filed one but did not assert any issue regarding the sufficiency of his affidavit of defense.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed: it held Kanofsky waived appellate issues not raised in his 1925(b) statement and independently found the Affidavit of Defense insufficient because it did not deny or contest the existence, validity, or amount of the delinquent taxes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kanofsky’s Affidavit of Defense was legally sufficient to raise a defense to the scire facias tax claim | District: The affidavit contains no allegations challenging the existence, validity, or amount of the delinquent taxes; judgment proper | Kanofsky: (implied) his pro se brief and countercomplaint constituted defenses to the tax claim | Court: Affidavit of Defense insufficient; none of its allegations addressed delinquency or tax validity, so judgment for District affirmed |
| Whether appellate issues not included in a court‑ordered Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) statement are waived | District: Issues not raised in the 1925(b) statement are waived | Kanofsky: raised other questions on appeal but failed to connect them to the affidavit-sufficiency issue | Court: Issues not raised in the 1925(b) statement are waived; appellate review limited to the affidavit-sufficiency issue and it was resolved against Kanofsky |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (describes strict preservation rule for Rule 1925(b) statements)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (requiring compliance with Rule 1925(b) to preserve appellate issues)
- W. Clinton Cnty. Mun. Auth. v. Estate of Rosamilia, 826 A.2d 52 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (procedures for judgment on insufficient affidavit of defense analogous to judgment on the pleadings)
- Borough of Fairview v. Property Located at Tax Index No. 48-67-4, 453 A.2d 728 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (affidavit of defense to municipal lien must be certain and definite)
- Pfister v. City of Phila., 963 A.2d 593 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (no unresolved material facts where affidavit of defense fails to contest tax claim)
- Gen. Mun. Auth. of Borough of Harvey's Lake v. Yuhas, 572 A.2d 1291 (Pa. Super. 1990) (only pleadings—writ, affidavit of defense, replies—are considered when assessing affidavit sufficiency)