Dwyer v. Luzerne County Tax Claim Bureau
110 A.3d 223
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Upset tax sale held Sept. 19, 2013 by Luzerne County Tax Claim Bureau for unimproved lots (Goss Manor); Purchaser bid $3,800 and was declared winner.
- Title to the Property was held by a partnership (SPG Enterprises) formed by Snell, Pish, and Garrity; Garrity and Dwyer later appeared on title records with Garrity as primary contact.
- Bureau mailed certified notices of the impending sale to both Garrity and to "James Dwyer, care of Michael Garrity" at Garrity’s Harveys Lake address; Garrity signed for both certified mail receipts.
- Bureau did not undertake any further efforts to locate Dwyer after Garrity signed the receipt for the mail addressed to Dwyer; no evidence Garrity was authorized to accept Dwyer’s certified mail.
- Appellees (partners) petitioned to set aside the sale; trial court granted petition, finding statutory notice requirements were not met. Purchaser appealed; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dwyer was an "owner" entitled to separate notice | Dwyer was on the assessment/recorded title and thus an owner entitled to notice | Purchaser argued Dwyer was not entitled because he did not update assessor address and was not effectively reachable | Held: Dwyer was an owner under the statute; each named owner must receive individual notice regardless of form of ownership. |
| Whether certified mail signed by Garrity satisfied notice to Dwyer | Purchaser: signing by Garrity sufficed because mail was sent to recorded address in care of Garrity | Appellees: signature by Garrity did not prove authority to receive Dwyer’s restricted-delivery certified mail | Held: Bureau must prove addressee or authorized agent signed; Garrity’s signature did not establish authorization, so strict restricted-delivery requirement was not met. |
| Whether Bureau’s duty to make additional reasonable efforts was triggered | Purchaser: no further steps required because mail was sent to the recorded address and Garrity received it | Appellees: receipt signed by someone other than addressee triggered the statutory duty to investigate and locate the addressee | Held: When certified mail for an owner is not signed by that owner, section 607.1(a) requires reasonable follow-up efforts; Bureau made none, so duty was breached. |
| Whether Dwyer had actual or implied actual notice despite procedural defects | Purchaser: Dwyer had implied actual notice because Garrity acted as agent/manager and handled the property | Appellees: Garrity testified he did not inform Dwyer of the sale; no evidence of agency or prior authorization | Held: No proof of actual or implied notice — court rejected reliance on inference without evidence of authorization or prior pattern. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boehm v. Barnes, 437 A.2d 784 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (partners each require separate notice)
- Teslovich v. Johnson, 406 A.2d 1374 (Pa. 1979) (separate notice required for each named owner regardless of tenancy form)
- Husak v. Fayette County Tax Claim Bureau, 61 A.3d 302 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (signature must be by addressee or authorized person to satisfy certified-mail requirement)
- Popple v. Luzerne County Tax Claim Bureau, 960 A.2d 517 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (circumstances supporting implied actual notice include evidence of authorization or consistent prior acceptance as agent)
- In re Tax Sale of Real Property Situated in Jefferson Township, 828 A.2d 475 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (taxing agency bears burden to prove compliance with statutory notice provisions)
- Rice v. Compro Distributing, Inc., 901 A.2d 570 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (bureau bears burden to show reasonable efforts when required)