D. Sampson and L. Sampson, jointly and individually v. TCB of Chester County and CJD Group, LLC
151 A.3d 1163
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- David and Linda Sampson owned property in Chester County; unpaid 2011 real estate taxes led the Tax Claim Bureau to list the property for upset sale in Sept. 2013.
- On Sept. 6, 2013 Linda Sampson paid $4,500 and signed a “Continued Installment Agreement” that required payment of the remaining 2011 balance by Dec. 6, 2013 and remaining taxes by June 30, 2014.
- The Bureau’s witness testified the Bureau offers two plans: a Section 603 stay (25% down; up to one year; installment dates/amounts specified) and a “continued installment” (25% down of amount driving the sale; extends only to Dec.).
- The $4,500 paid exceeded 25% of the 2011 delinquency (the tax year actually “pushing” the property to sale). The property was sold at the Dec. 9, 2013 upset sale after the Sampsons did not pay the Dec. 6 amount.
- The Sampsons petitioned to set aside the sale; trial court denied relief, finding the Bureau properly continued the sale under Section 601 and had sufficiently explained options.
- On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed, holding the Bureau was required to offer a Section 603 installment agreement once the taxpayer tendered at least 25% and failed to do so, invalidating the sale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Bureau was required to offer a Section 603 installment agreement after taxpayer paid ≥25% | Sampson: Payment of $4,500 (over 25% of 2011 delinquency) triggered a statutory right to a Section 603 agreement (one-year installments with dates/amounts) | Bureau: The parties entered a valid “continued installment” under Section 601; no Section 603 protections were required | Held: Bureau had duty to offer Section 603 once taxpayer paid ≥25% of the amount driving the sale; it failed to do so, so sale invalid |
| Whether a Section 601 “continuance” can substitute for a Section 603 agreement when taxpayer pays ≥25% | Sampson: Section 601 cannot be used to deprive taxpayer of Section 603 protections or to substitute for a statutory installment agreement | Bureau: Section 601 authorizes continued sales/agreements and permitted the Bureau’s conduct | Held: Section 601 does not authorize the Bureau to offer a Section 601-style agreement as a substitute for the Section 603 installment agreement; Section 603 protections control |
| Whether Bureau satisfied due process by advising taxpayers of options and providing required default notice | Sampson: Bureau failed to advise of Section 603 option and did not give statutory default notice before resale | Bureau: Bureau explained alternatives and properly continued sale; no Section 603 notice duty arose | Held: Record lacked proof Bureau advised Sampsons of Section 603 option or satisfied Section 603 notice requirements; sale invalid |
| Whether sale could proceed under Section 601 when property had been removed from sale under Section 603 | Sampson: Once 25% paid, property is to be removed under Section 603; sale barred until Section 603 process complete | Bureau: Section 601 continuance governed and authorized sale | Held: A sale under Section 601 cannot proceed where property had been removed from sale under Section 603; Section 603 controlled once 25% tendered |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanford–Gale v. Tax Claim Bureau of Susquehanna County, 816 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (Tax Sale Law is for tax collection but must protect owners’ property rights)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (due process requires adequate notice before governmental taking of property)
- Smith v. Tax Claim Bureau of Pike County, 834 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (failure to comply with statutory requirements can nullify a tax sale)
- Darden v. Montgomery County Tax Claim Bureau, 629 A.2d 321 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (burden of appellate review and standards)
- In re Consolidated Return of the Tax Claim Bureau, 105 A.3d 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (when taxpayer pays ≥25%, bureau must advise taxpayer of Section 603 option)
- Barker v. Chester County Tax Claim Bureau, 143 A.3d 1069 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (Section 601 continuance cannot be used to avoid Section 603 protections)