In Re: Consolidated Return of Luzerne County TCB of the Upset Tax Sale of Properties held on April 26, 2013 ~ Appeal of: J.P. Covert and A. Covert, 2091 C.D. 2013

Coverts, a son and mother, owned the subject property with two other co-owners; elder Covert died in 2004.
Luzerne County Tax Claim Bureau conducted an upset tax sale for the property on April 26, 2013; JAM Downtown, LLC purchased at the sale.
Coverts filed exceptions and a petition to set aside the sale, alleging improper mail notice under Section 602 of the RETSL.
Trial court denied the exceptions and petition; Purchaser opposed the continuance and supported the sale.
On appeal, the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County reversed the sale would be void if notice violations were proven; the Superior Court affirmed? (not stated)
Court holds that Bureau failed to provide separate mailed notices to each owner as required by Section 602(e)(1) and (e)(2) of the RETSL; as such, the sale is voided.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Bureau failed to provide separate mail notices as required by Section 602(e)(1) of RETSL.	Covert argued notices were sent to et al., not to each owner.	Bureau argued substantial compliance since one notice went to the property address.	Yes; separate notices required; failure voids the sale.

Teslovich, 406 A.2d 1374 (Pa. 1979) (requires separate and individual notice to each named owner regardless of ownership form)
LaBracio v. Northumberland Cnty., 467 A.2d 1221 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (notice to et al. violates Section 602)
Stanford-Gale v. Tax Claim Bureau of Susquehanna Cnty., 816 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (strict compliance with RETSL notice provisions required)
Boehm v. Barnes, 437 A.2d 784 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (partnership owners require separate notice)
Donaldson v. Ritenour, 524 A.2d 1044 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (concurrent-owner trustees listed as multiple owners require separate notice)