City of Philadelphia v. F.A. Realty Investors Corp.
95 A.3d 377
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Appellants (F.A. Realty Investors Corp., F.A. Investment Group, Inc., Information Management Group, Inc.) owned 6001 N. 17th St., Philadelphia; City filed for sale for delinquent taxes and obtained a decree to sell at sheriff’s sale.
- Property was posted and notice mailed; sheriff conducted sale on November 21, 2012; successful bidder later assigned bid to Tevel 6100, LLC.
- Appellants filed a petition to redeem premises on December 6, 2012 (≈two weeks after sale) before the sheriff’s deed was acknowledged; trial court dismissed the petition as premature.
- Trial court relied on 53 P.S. § 7293 (section 32 of the Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act), concluding redemption period begins after acknowledgment and noting § 7293(c) bars redemption of vacant property.
- This Court considered whether a petition to redeem may be filed before acknowledgment of the sheriff’s deed and whether § 7293(c) forbids redemption of vacant property at all times or only after acknowledgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether owner may file petition to redeem before acknowledgment of sheriff’s deed | Appellants: petition may be filed any time so long as filed within nine months after acknowledgment (so filing before acknowledgment is timely) | City: petition can be filed only after acknowledgment and must be within nine months after that date | Court: Owner may file petition to redeem prior to acknowledgment so long as final redemption occurs within nine months after acknowledgment; dismissal as premature vacated |
| Whether vacant property may be redeemed at all | Appellants: § 7293(c) only precludes redemption after acknowledgment, so vacant property is redeemable before acknowledgment | City: § 7293(c) prohibits redemption of vacant property in all cases | Court: § 7293(c) bars redemption of vacant property after acknowledgment only; vacant property may be redeemed prior to acknowledgment |
| Whether two entities were indispensable parties / required to be named | Appellants: City failed to join F.A. Investment Group and Information Management Group as defendants to sale | City: notice provisions satisfied; lack of formal intervention limits their claims | Court: City complied with statutory notice rules; entities were not indispensable and did not properly intervene, so sale decree was proper |
| Whether Appellants entitled to hearing on redemption petition | Appellants: petition set forth readiness to pay and required facts; hearing required | City: petition premature (so no hearing) | Court: Because petition was timely, court must issue rule to show cause and hold hearing under § 7293(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dooling Tire Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 789 A.2d 364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (interpreting redemption statute language and addressing vacancy limitation after deed acknowledgment)
- City of Philadelphia v. Manu, 76 A.3d 601 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (tax sale purpose is collection of municipal claims, not stripping owners of property)
- Rodriguez ex rel. Rodriguez v. SCG Mortgage Corp., 865 A.2d 987 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (acknowledgment and delivery of sheriff’s deed are distinct from recording; prior owner retains possession until acknowledgment)
- City of Philadelphia v. Schaffer, 974 A.2d 509 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (strict compliance with notice requirements under the Act is required)
- City of Philadelphia v. Taylor, 465 A.2d 33 (Pa. Super. 1983) (redemption statute construed liberally to effect its object and promote justice)
- Tracy v. County of Chester, 489 A.2d 1334 (Pa. 1985) (tax sale purpose is to ensure collection of taxes; constitutional significance of forfeiting property for nonpayment)