Husak v. Fayette County Tax Claim Bureau
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Owners lived on the subject property since 1996; Fannie Mae acquired it in 2006 and later conveyed back to Owners via a non-notarized quitclaim deed.
- Bureau sent tax notices to Fannie Mae as record owner from 2006 through 2010 while deeds were not yet properly recorded for Owners.
- Tax years 2008–2010 were delinquent; notice of claim and notice of sale were sent to Fannie Mae, including a June 2010 sale notice signed by someone identified as J. Pierce.
- Tax sale occurred September 20, 2010; Purchaser bought the property; post-sale notice was sent to Fannie Mae; deed was recorded to Purchaser in November 2010.
- In December 2010, Owners filed a petition to set aside the tax sale; trial court found Owners had standing and that Bureau failed to comply with Section 607.1(a) notice.
- A quiet title action against Fannie Mae proceeded; a decree nisi later declared the sale valid against Fannie Mae, while Owners later obtained a corrective quitclaim deed in March 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Owners to challenge sale | Owners, as purchasers with equitable title, were aggrieved and had standing. | Owners lacked record ownership at sale and thus lacked standing. | Owners had standing to challenge the sale. |
| Notice to or identification of the true owner | Bureau failed to use additional notification efforts to locate Owners; notice to Fannie Mae was insufficient. | Farro controls; notice to record owner suffices when other notices are proper. | Bureau failed to perform §607.1(a) additional efforts; notice to actual owners was required; sale set aside. |
| Effect of quiet title action on validity of sale | Quiet title against Fannie Mae does not bind Owners who were not parties. | Quiet title decree could affect Owners' interests. | Quiet title action did not preclude trial court’s authority to set aside sale; on remand, sale upheld to be set aside based on notice deficiencies. |
Key Cases Cited
- William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (standing requires substantial, direct, immediate interest)
- Geier v. Tax Claim Bureau of Schuylkill Cnty., 527 Pa. 41, 588 A.2d 480 (Pa. 1991) (due process requires reasonable efforts to identify owners of record)
- Tracy v. Chester Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 507 Pa. 288, 489 A.2d 1334 (Pa. 1985) (due process requires reasonable investigation to locate owners)
- Farro v. Tax Claim Bureau of Monroe Cnty., 704 A.2d 1137 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (investigation limited to owners of record; common-sense addresses required)
- Rossi v. Indiana County Tax Claim Bureau, 494 A.2d 526 (Pa.Cmwlth.1985) (Geier/Tracy framework; strict construction of notice provisions)
- Smith v. Pike Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 834 A.2d 1247 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (notice must be by authorized recipient; signed receipts control)
- Ali v. Montgomery Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 557 A.2d 35 (Pa.Cmwlth.1989) (authorized recipient required for receipt of mailed notices)
- Szustak v. County of Erie Tax Claim Bureau, 672 A.2d 864 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996) (unreported-like persuasive aid; distinguishable facts)