In Re: Adams County TCB ~ Appeal of: The Howard M. Saperstein Profit Sharing Plan
200 A.3d 622
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- The Howard M. Saperstein Profit Sharing Plan (Saperstein Plan) acquired a sheriff’s deed to 4 Trout Run Trail (Property) on March 31, 2016, recorded same day, after obtaining a foreclosure sheriff’s sale earlier in 2016.
- Adams County Tax Claim Bureau (Bureau) petitioned for a judicial tax sale alleging delinquent taxes against Derek and Maureen Sailors (named as owners) and obtained a Rule to show cause; the title search listed both the Sailors and the Saperstein Plan.
- The Rule listed three addresses for the Saperstein Plan; certified mail to out‑of‑state addresses was returned; a clerk at the law firm (Firm) at a York address accepted personal service of the Rule.
- The Bureau published judicial sale readvertisements in local newspapers, but those notices listed the Sailors as the owner and did not include any explicit reference to the prior upset‑sale advertisement as required by 72 P.S. §5860.612(b).
- The Property was sold at judicial sale on September 30, 2016; Saperstein Plan petitioned to set aside the sale arguing defective notice (including defective published readvertisement).
- The trial court denied the petition, finding personal service valid; the Commonwealth Court reversed solely on the ground that the newspapers’ readvertisement failed to reference the prior upset sale advertisement as required, invalidating the judicial sale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Saperstein Plan) | Defendant's Argument (Bureau) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Petition naming owner: Petition named Sailors not Saperstein Plan. | Petition was defective for failing to name true owner (Saperstein Plan). | Upset sale predated recording of sheriff’s deed; listing Sailors as owners in prior ads was correct at that time. | Court did not decide this issue (no need after resolving readvertisement defect). |
| 2. Personal service at York Firm address: validity under 72 P.S. §5860.611. | Service on Firm’s clerk at York address was ineffective to bind Saperstein Plan. | Personal service was valid per sheriff’s return and Law. | Trial court found personal service valid; Commonwealth Court reversed sale on other grounds and did not rule on this. |
| 3. Mail method: certified vs. required registered mail. | Mailing by certified mail to out‑of‑state addresses was improper where statute requires registered mail. | Bureau did not directly contest this point; focused on other compliance defenses. | Not resolved—court reversed on readvertisement defect and did not reach this. |
| 4. Readvertisement requirement: newspapers must reference prior upset‑sale ad per §612(b). | Newspapers failed to reference the prior advertisement; published notice requirement is strict and defective readvertisement invalidates judicial sale. | Readvertisement need not correct prior owner listing; upset sale ads were correct when published because Saperstein Plan recorded later. | Held for Saperstein Plan: readvertisements lacked required reference to prior advertisement; strict compliance required; judicial sale invalid and order reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- FS Partners v. York Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 132 A.3d 577 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (burden on tax bureau to prove statutory notice compliance)
- In re Sale of Real Estate Northampton Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 874 A.2d 697 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (readvertisement requirements of §612(b) must be strictly construed)
- Aldhelm, Inc. v. Schuylkill Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 879 A.2d 400 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (strict compliance with published‑notice rules)
- Poffenberger v. Goldstein, 776 A.2d 1037 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (recording of deed gives public notice of ownership)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Tax Claim Bureau of Monroe Cnty., 817 A.2d 1196 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (published notice defects can affect sale validity)
- Smith v. Tax Claim Bureau of Pike Cnty., 834 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (owner not obligated to notify bureau of address change)
- Basehore v. Dauphin Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 480 A.2d 1313 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (published notice serves a distinct public purpose; defective publication not cured by personal notice)
- Hicks v. Och, 331 A.2d 219 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975) (defective published notice may render sale void)