City of Philadelphia v. Manu
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 363
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Agnes Manu owned rental property in Philadelphia; the City petitioned (Jan 2011) to sell the property for delinquent water/sewer rents (and later filed an amended claim for unpaid taxes).
- The City’s petition was deficient: it listed a $0.00 water/sewer lien and an amended tax claim of $657.54, while allegedly seeking a lien recovery of about $14,702.99.
- The trial court issued a rule to show cause only upon Manu (Jan 31, 2011) and directed service “in the manner of scire facias”; the sheriff’s return reflects only posting.
- Manu filed motions for extension, stay, clarification, and to strike/vacate the sale order; the court ordered a sheriff’s sale (Sept. 21, 2011) and later denied her motion to strike/vacate (Dec. 8, 2011).
- Informational Management Group (a listed mortgagee) later moved to intervene alleging lack of notice; the trial court dismissed that petition without prejudice because the matter was on appeal.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed: it found the City and trial court failed to strictly comply with the Municipal Liens Act’s mandatory procedures (service, listing of claims, publication, hearing), vacated the sale order, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Municipal Liens Act’s procedural requirements (service, publication, listing of claims) strictly complied with before authorizing sale? | Manu: No — petition failed to list all claims/amounts; service was defective; no proof of publication or proper hearing. | City: Service was satisfied by posting and by certified/first-class mail (affidavit); any defects waived by lack of an answer; appeal untimely. | Held: No. Strict compliance lacking (defective service, inadequate claim disclosure, no proof of publication/hearing). Sale order vacated. |
| Did the court acquire personal/jurisdiction over other interested parties? | Manu: No — lack of required service deprived court of jurisdiction; indispensable parties were not joined. | City: Manu had actual notice; mailing/affidavit (filed later) cured notice issues. | Held: Court lacked requisite jurisdiction over other interested parties because service rules were not met; affidavit filed after sale order insufficient. |
| Was the motion to strike/vacate untimely, requiring quash of Manu’s appeal? | Manu: Her appeal from denial of motion to strike/vacate was timely; trial court retained jurisdiction because sale had not concluded. | City: Motion to strike/vacate was a reconsideration motion that did not toll the 30-day appeal period; appeal is untimely. | Held: Manu’s appeal from the Dec. 8 order was timely and reviewable; relief nonetheless warranted on jurisdictional/procedural grounds. |
| Should the September 21, 2011 sale order be vacated despite sale not yet consummated? | Manu: Yes — procedural defects and due process violations justify vacatur. | City: Impliedly no — proceedings and docket entries show notice and opportunity. | Held: Vacated — multiple mandatory defects and due process concerns required striking the order and remanding. |
Key Cases Cited
- N. Coventry Twp. v. Tripodi, 64 A.3d 1128 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (Municipal Liens Act prescribes exclusive, detailed procedure for lien sales)
- In re Somerset Cnty. Tax Sale of Real Estate in the Name of Tub Mill Farms, Inc., 14 A.3d 180 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (burden on claimant to prove strict compliance with statutory sale procedures)
- In re Sale of Real Estate by Lackawanna Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 22 A.3d 308 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (proper service is prerequisite to personal jurisdiction in tax-sale proceedings)
- Fraisar v. Gillis, 892 A.2d 74 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (failure to strictly comply with service requirement deprives court of jurisdiction to authorize sale)
- Tracy v. County of Chester, 489 A.2d 1334 (Pa. 1985) (purpose of tax/sheriff sales is claim collection, not deprivation of property; due process required)
- Fulton v. Bedford County Tax Claim Bureau, 942 A.2d 240 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (court may open/vacate after 30 days for extrinsic fraud, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, facial defect, or extraordinary cause)