Duquesne City and Duquesne City SD v. B.S. Comensky, 389 C.D. 2016

In 2007 Duquesne City and Duquesne City School District filed a scire facias to collect delinquent municipal and school taxes against property owned by Burton Comensky at 32 S. Sixth St.
The writ was served on a “person in charge” at the property; Comensky filed an Affidavit of Defense asserting improper service and other defects.
After multiple pleadings and motions, the trial court granted Taxing Authorities’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and entered judgment against Comensky in December 2013; Comensky did not appeal that judgment.
Taxing Authorities later sought issuance of a Rule to Show Cause under the Tax Liens Act and a sheriff’s sale; the Rule was certified as posted on the property and mailed, and counsel also handed Comensky a copy; hearing occurred December 10, 2015.
Property was sold at sheriff’s sale January 4, 2016; Comensky moved to set aside the sale and to open/strike judgment, arguing defective service of the Rule and reasserting prior challenges to liens and pleadings.
The trial court denied relief; Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding most issues precluded by res judicata and that any defect in service of the Rule did not deprive Comensky of due process because he received notice and participated in the hearing.

Issue	Comensky’s Argument	Taxing Authorities’ Argument	Held
Sufficiency of service of Rule to Show Cause / due process	Rule and posting/mail did not comply with Tax Liens Act; deprived him of due process	Service was made (posting, mail, counsel hand-delivered copy); Comensky had notice and attended hearing	Although record lacked strict proof of statutory service, Comensky had actual notice and participated; no prejudicial due process violation; claim fails
Validity/amount of liens	Liens and calculations are incorrect	Judgment on pleadings resolved lien amounts in 2013	Barred by res judicata; judgment final and binding because Comensky did not appeal
Indispensable party / alleged purchaser interest	Purported purchaser or contract for sale is necessary party and not joined	Issues were raised earlier and decided against Comensky	Barred by res judicata; cannot collaterally attack final judgment
Pleadings verification	Pleadings were not properly verified, invalidating proceedings	Verification issues were litigated and rejected in 2013 judgment	Barred by res judicata; untimely collateral attack denied

Coudriet v. Benzinger Township, 467 A.2d 1229 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (issues raised in scire facias and followed by final judgment are res judicata)
Chester Mun. Auth. v. Delp, 92 A.2d 169 (Pa. 1952) (scire facias judgment has res judicata effect)
Bern Twp. Auth. v. Hartman, 451 A.2d 567 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (res judicata applies to scire facias proceedings)
Fox Chapel Sanitary Auth. v. Abbott, 384 A.2d 1012 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (unappealed determination becomes final and cannot be collaterally attacked)
U.S. Nat’l Bank Ass’n v. United Hands Cmty. Land Trust, 129 A.3d 627 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (strict statutory notice required for tax-sale proceedings)
City of Philadelphia v. Manu, 76 A.3d 601 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (strict compliance with Tax Liens Act notice provisions protects due process)
City of Philadelphia v. Schaffer, 974 A.2d 509 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (failure to follow statutory notice can deprive court of jurisdiction)
City of Philadelphia v. Robinson, 123 A.3d 791 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (even if service defective, actual appearance and participation cures notice defect)
F.A. Realty Investors Corp. v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 812 A.2d 719 (Pa. Super. 2002) (notice requirements and due process considerations in tax-sale context)