Consolidated Reports & Return by the Tax Claims Bureau of Northumberland County of Properties
132 A.3d 637
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Owner-occupant Shari Neff (co-owner with estranged husband) faced an upset tax sale of her home for 2011 delinquent taxes; tax sale occurred September 18, 2013.
- Bureau mailed certified notice June 11, 2013; husband signed, Neff’s certified mailing was returned unclaimed.
- Bureau’s contractor (Palmetto Posting) posted a fluorescent pink notice on the property and attempted in-person service three times (Aug. 5, Aug. 8, Aug. 9, 2013) but did not encounter Neff.
- Bureau filed an ex parte petition to waive the personal-service requirement under 72 P.S. § 5860.601(a)(3); the trial court granted the waiver the same day and the property was sold.
- Neff objected; after a hearing the trial court found Neff had actual notice and confirmed the sale. The Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bureau satisfied Section 602 first-class "proof of mailing" after certified mail returned | Neff: Bureau failed to produce adequate USPS-connected proof of first-class mailing required by §602(e)(2) | Bureau: provided a postage-meter list and postmark labels showing mailing on Sept. 4, 2013 | Court: Strict proof fell short of Horton standard, but waived because Neff had actual notice |
| Whether Neff had "actual notice" of the sale so as to relieve strict Section 602 compliance | Neff: She did not receive or read full notices and lacked actual knowledge of sale date | Bureau/Purchasers: Posted notice was read by Neff and contained sale date; other notices/publishings occurred | Court: Credible evidence (Neff read posted notice) supports implied/express actual notice; actual notice satisfied due process |
| Whether waiver of personal-service requirement under §601(a)(3) for owner-occupants was justified ("good cause shown") | Neff: Three daytime, same-week attempts were insufficient; Bureau should have tried evenings/weekends and should have given notice of the waiver petition | Bureau: Law does not prescribe number/timing of attempts; three attempts is common practice and supports waiver; Neff had actual notice anyway | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion in finding good cause and granting waiver; ex parte waiver proceedings were permissible here |
| Whether attempts by an un-deputized private server/designee satisfied §601(a)(3) or required denial of sale | Neff: Server (Palmetto) was not deputized or appointed by commissioners; attempted service by unqualified designee invalid | Purchasers: Trial court’s waiver of personal-service requirement obviates the qualification issue | Court: Because trial court properly waived both personal-service and the qualification requirement, lack of deputization did not defeat the sale |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise owner of impending tax taking)
- Horton v. Washington County Tax Claim Bureau, 81 A.3d 883 (Pa.) (proof of mailing standard—USPS documents/envelopes satisfy §602(e)(2))
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (due process standard for notice: reasonably calculated under circumstances)
- Sabbeth v. Tax Claim Bureau of Fulton County, 714 A.2d 514 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (actual notice can excuse strict compliance with statutory notice provisions)
- Rice v. Compro Distributing, Inc., 901 A.2d 570 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (review in tax-sale cases: whether trial court abused discretion or lacked evidence)