City of Philadelphia v. F.A. Realty Investors Corp., 146 A.3d 287

F.A. Realty (owner) owned 6001 N. 17th St., Philadelphia; City filed tax claim and property was posted for sheriff’s sale in 2010 and sold at sheriff’s sale on November 21, 2012. The successful bid was later assigned to Tevel 6100 LLC (Intervenor).
Appellant filed a petition to redeem on December 6, 2012 (before acknowledgment of the sheriff’s deed). The sheriff’s deed was acknowledged on January 28, 2013 and recorded March 3, 2013.
This Court previously held in F.A. Realty that a petition to redeem filed before acknowledgment is not premature and remanded for a rule to show cause and hearing under sections 31–32 of the Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act (the Act).
On remand Intervenor sought and was granted leave to intervene as record purchaser; trial court denied appellant’s motion to compel the City to state the exact redemption amount and ruled appellant could redeem upon payment of costs to the purchaser (about $2.94M).
On appeal, appellant challenged (1) trial court bias and recusal denial, (2) law‑of‑the‑case violations (arguing Intervenor lacked standing), (3) that payment should be to the City not purchaser, (4) that the property was not redeemable after deed acknowledgment, and (5) that appellant failed to show readiness to pay.
Court of Common Pleas order granting intervention affirmed; order allowing redemption reversed because appellant failed to prove readiness, although court rejected appellant’s other challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (F.A. Realty)	Defendant's Argument (City / Intervenor)	Held
Whether trial judge’s statements showed bias requiring recusal	Statements and rulings evidenced bias and partiality	Judge’s remarks were contextual and did not show bias; appellant delayed recusal motion	No bias; recusal untimely and properly denied
Whether the law‑of‑the‑case barred Intervenor from participating because deed was not acknowledged when petition filed	Prior opinion meant sale was unconsummated so purchaser has no cognizable interest	Deed was later acknowledged and purchaser is record owner with cognizable interest	Law‑of‑the‑case does not bar intervention; intervenor properly permitted
To whom must redemption payments be made — City or purchaser	Payments should be to City because appellant sought to redeem City tax liens	Act requires payment to purchaser for amounts purchaser actually paid; purchaser receives redemption funds	Payments must be made to purchaser; trial court correctly applied Act
Whether appellant demonstrated readiness, willingness, and ability to pay redemption price	Appellant was ready and had financing commitments to pay redemption cost	Financing testimony lacked documentary support and did not cover the full amount; lenders would not advance as high as needed	Appellant failed to prove readiness; petition to redeem improperly granted

City of Philadelphia v. F.A. Realty Investors Corp., 95 A.3d 377 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (prior panel holding petition to redeem filed before acknowledgment not premature)
City of Allentown v. Kauth, 874 A.2d 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (scope of review in tax sale cases)
Fulton v. Bedford County Tax Claim Bureau, 942 A.2d 240 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (property owners are indispensable parties to litigation affecting title)
City of Philadelphia v. King Kai Chin, 511 A.2d 514 (Pa. Super. 1986) (discussing purchaser rights after tax sale)
City of Philadelphia to Use of Philadelphia Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Novick, 582 A.2d 1363 (Pa. Super. 1990) (case law on purchaser rights following sheriff’s sale)
Couriers-Susquehanna, Inc. v. County of Dauphin, 693 A.2d 626 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (explaining law‑of‑the‑case doctrine and its exceptions)