123 A.3d 791
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- City of Philadelphia filed a petition (May 31, 2013) to sell 618–620 Jefferson St. free and clear for tax delinquencies (2003–2012); trial court later calculated arrears at $9,333.78 plus continuing charges and ordered sheriff’s sale.
- City submitted affidavits showing posting on the property and mailing of the petition and rule to Robinson at multiple addresses; hearing was continued and rescheduled to April 8, 2014.
- Robinson (pro se) answered and pleaded new matter contesting the amount of taxes (and ongoing Board of Revision proceedings) and alleged defective/erroneous administrative rule wording/docket entries.
- At the April 8, 2014 hearing the parties argued orally; no formal documentary evidence was admitted though the City provided an accounting; court directed parties to reconcile figures and issued the sale order.
- Trial court affirmed sale order; Robinson appealed raising service defects, clerical errors in the rule order, missing documents in the certified record, and the City’s failure to respond to his new matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of the sale petition/rule complied with the Act | Service was improper; City failed to strictly follow Act requirements (claimed need for personal/sheriff service) | Service by posting on property and first-class mail satisfied Section 39.2 of the Act | Service complied with Section 39.2 (posting + first-class mail); Robinson appeared and was not prejudiced — held valid |
| Whether clerical/boilerplate errors in docketed/admin order (showing wrong judge/date) invalidate the sale process | Erroneous May 31, 2013 entry (purported Panepinto signature/2011 date) and boilerplate text render the process void/misleading | Court corrected clerical error by issuing amended June 14 order; later-accurate order controls | Clerical error did not invalidate process; amended order cured the error |
| Whether missing copies of rule orders in the certified record (or docket) require reversal | Trial court’s failure to include rule orders in certified record violates Act and undermines the sale | Parties provided copies as exhibits; appellate court can judicially notice/cure incomplete record; no prejudice shown | Lack of those copies in certified record did not preclude review; court may take judicial notice and decline to remand |
| Whether City’s failure to respond to Robinson’s new matter warranted relief | City did not answer new matter; trial court abused discretion by ignoring it | City contends sale petition is not a pleading in the ordinary civil sense; trial court found failure to respond did not invalidate the Sale Petition | Issue was waived on appeal (not preserved in statement of questions); court did not decide merits |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Philadelphia v. Manu, 76 A.3d 601 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (interpreting service provisions of the Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act)
- City of Philadelphia v. F.A. Investors Corp., 95 A.3d 377 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (applied Section 39.2 service rule to tax sale procedure)
- City of Allentown v. Kauth, 874 A.2d 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (standard of appellate review in tax sale matters: errors of law, evidence support, and abuse of discretion)