City of Philadelphia v. D. Hawkins ~ Appeal of: R.P. Singhal
City of Philadelphia v. D. Hawkins ~ Appeal of: R.P. Singhal - 2555 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Mar 29, 2017Background
- Denise Hawkins (owner) faced a City of Philadelphia tax-lien action; the property was sold at sheriff’s sale on November 18, 2014; sheriff’s deed acknowledged January 8, 2015.
- Rupali P. Singhal purchased the property at the sheriff’s sale for $12,100; sheriff’s deed acknowledged January 8, 2015.
- Hawkins filed a petition to redeem the property on October 5, 2015 (within nine months of deed acknowledgment); the City and Singhal responded; Singhal did not formally obtain intervenor status.
- The trial court held a hearing, found Hawkins ready and able to redeem, calculated the redemption amount ($13,048.38 as of Nov. 18, 2015), and ordered conveyance upon payment; interest was ordered to continue accruing until paid.
- Singhal appealed, arguing (1) redemption was untimely or incomplete because full payment was not made within nine months, (2) he was not made whole (disputing interest and costs), and (3) Hawkins’ in forma pauperis status precluded redemption.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed: Hawkins timely filed the redemption petition, the nine-month rule requires filing (not final payment) within nine months, the trial court’s interest and redemption calculation and findings were supported by the record, and IFP status did not bar redemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Singhal) | Defendant's Argument (Hawkins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of redemption | Hawkins failed to complete redemption within nine months; payment not made in time | Filing the redemption petition within nine months satisfies §32(a); final payment may occur after | Petition filed Oct. 5, 2015 (before Oct. 8 deadline); filing — not final payment — must occur within nine months; held for Hawkins |
| Requirement of full payment within nine months | Redemption requires full payment within nine months (relying on Keilyk) | MCTLA requires petition be filed within nine months; actual payment process is court-controlled and may occur later | Court follows precedents: filing triggers redemption process; full payment need not occur within nine months |
| Calculation of redemption amount / making purchaser whole | Singhal disputes interest and other charges; contends he was not restored to pre-sale financial position | Trial court calculated interest from deed acknowledgment and required full payment plus continuing interest; Hawkins demonstrated readiness to pay | Trial court’s calculation ($13,048.38 as of Nov. 18, 2015) and findings that Hawkins made purchaser whole were supported by substantial evidence |
| Effect of IFP status on ability to redeem | Hawkins’ IFP status (exemption from court costs) indicates inability to pay and should preclude redemption | IFP rules permit proceeding without court costs; IFP status does not negate ability to redeem if petitioner shows readiness to pay redemption sums | IFP status, granted by issuing authority and uncontested, did not preclude redemption; trial court properly considered it and did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Philadelphia v. F.A. Realty Investors Corp., 95 A.3d 377 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (MCTLA construed to favor tax collection and permit owner redemption when petition filed within nine months)
- City of Philadelphia v. Manu, 76 A.3d 601 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (sheriff's sale purpose is collection of municipal claims, not to strip owners of property)
- Philadelphia Scrapyard Properties, LLC v. City of Philadelphia, 132 A.3d 1060 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (statutory filing deadline requires filing petition within nine months; payment mechanics are court-controlled)
- In re Gonzalez, 550 B.R. 711 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2016) (actual payment may occur after the nine-month filing deadline; petition must be filed within the period)
- City of Philadelphia v. Keilyk, 551 A.2d 1094 (Pa. Super. 1988) (statute requires payment of full bid amount to accomplish redemption; addressed proportional payment issue)
- City of Allentown v. Kauth, 874 A.2d 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (standard of appellate review in tax-sale cases: abuse of discretion, lack of evidence, or legal error)
- Commonwealth v. Torres, 764 A.2d 532 (Pa. 2001) (deference to issuing authority's factual findings, including IFP determinations)
- Ward v. Werner, 61 F.R.D. 639 (M.D. Pa. 1974) (no fixed net worth disqualifies IFP; poverty sufficient for IFP need not be absolute destitution)