Horton v. Washington County Tax Claim Bureau
623 Pa. 113
| Pa. | 2013Background
- Horton purchased a condominium unit in Pennsylvania but lived and received mail in Florida; the deed contained name/address errors and tax bills for 2007–2008 were not paid.
- Washington County Tax Claim Bureau (the Bureau) followed statutory notice steps: publication, certified mail with restricted delivery (returned), posting, and sent a second notice by first-class mail on August 27, 2009 (envelopes later returned undeliverable).
- The Bureau produced a USPS Consolidated Postage Statement (showing bulk mailing) and the actual returned envelopes as evidence of the August 27 first-class mailings, but did not obtain a USPS Certificate of Mailing (Form 3817).
- Trial court set aside the tax upset sale for failure to provide the required “proof of mailing” under 72 P.S. § 5860.602(e)(2), relying on In re York County Tax Claim Bureau. Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that “proof of mailing” means USPS Form 3817 exclusively.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal to decide whether § 602(e)(2)’s “proof of mailing” requires only USPS Form 3817 or may be satisfied by other USPS documentation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Horton/Appellees) | Defendant's Argument (Lewis/Bureau) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 602(e)(2)’s phrase “proof of mailing” refers exclusively to USPS Certificate of Mailing (Form 3817). | York and trial court: statute requires a Certificate of Mailing; without Form 3817 compliance fails. | Bureau: other USPS documents (Consolidated Postage Statement, post office stamp, and returned envelopes) demonstrate mailing. | Majority: "proof of mailing" is not limited to Form 3817; other USPS documentation (here, postage statement and returned stamped envelopes) can satisfy § 602(e)(2). |
| Whether the Bureau’s proffered documents sufficed to establish proof of mailing in this case. | Horton: Bureau failed to provide statutorily required postal proof; sale should be set aside. | Bureau: its documents prove the mailing occurred. | Majority: the Bureau’s USPS-stamped Consolidated Postage Statement plus the actual returned envelopes provided sufficient proof here; case remanded for other issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re York County Tax Claim Bureau, 3 A.3d 765 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (held that “proof of mailing” under § 602(e)(2) required USPS Certificate of Mailing)
- Krumbine v. Lebanon County Tax Claim Bureau, 663 A.2d 158 (Pa. 1995) (notice provisions must be strictly complied with to protect due process)
- Newman Dev. Group v. Genuardi’s Family Markets, 52 A.3d 1233 (Pa. 2012) (standard: statutory interpretation—ascertain legislative intent)