74 A.3d 1089
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- Mid-Atlantic Acquisitions purchased a Foster Township property at a Luzerne County tax sale on November 10, 2011. Brennan and McDevitt (Appellees) objected, claiming the parcel was mistakenly sold and that counsel had arranged removal from the sale.
- Appellees filed objections/exceptions on December 1, 2011, alleging mistaken identity and that taxes could be paid once ownership was resolved in pending litigation. Mid-Atlantic intervened.
- On February 8, 2012, the court denied Appellees’ objections and denied a motion to set aside the sale; Mid-Atlantic prevailed and did not need to appeal that order. Appellees petitioned for reconsideration instead of appealing.
- The common pleas court granted reconsideration on March 28, 2012 (more than 30 days after the February 8 order), citing Mid-Atlantic’s alleged failure to respond; it then set aside the tax sale on April 3, 2012.
- Mid-Atlantic appealed, arguing the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction to modify its February 8 order after the 30‑day period in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 expired, and no fraud or equivalent was alleged to permit extension.
- The Commonwealth Court vacated the March 28 and April 3, 2012 orders and reinstated the February 8, 2012 order, holding the trial court exceeded its 30‑day modification jurisdiction; no fraud or extraordinary cause justified late relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could grant reconsideration and set aside its February 8 order more than 30 days after entry | Brennan/McDevitt: court could reconsider because counsel and Tax Bureau agreed to remove the property; reconsideration was proper | Mid-Atlantic: court lost jurisdiction after 30 days under § 5505; no timely appeal and no basis to modify order | Reversed: court lacked jurisdiction to modify after 30 days; March 28 and April 3 orders vacated and Feb. 8 order reinstated |
| Whether failure to respond to a petition for reconsideration by opposing party can toll § 5505 time limit | Brennan/McDevitt: trial court relied on alleged failure by Mid-Atlantic to respond to justify reconsideration | Mid-Atlantic: it did respond; regardless, opposing party’s inaction cannot extend jurisdictional 30‑day limit | Held: opposing party conduct does not create fraud/extraordinary cause; § 5505 is jurisdictional and not extended here |
| Whether fraud or its equivalent was alleged to permit extension of the 30‑day period | Brennan/McDevitt: did not assert fraud | Mid-Atlantic: emphasized no fraud alleged | Held: absent fraud or equivalent, judicial extension prohibited; none shown |
| Whether judicial error (court’s mistaken belief about response) constitutes extraordinary cause to reopen order | Brennan/McDevitt: court’s mistake justified reconsideration | Mid-Atlantic: judicial mistake is not sufficient here without extraordinary circumstances | Held: mere judicial mistake/failure to follow procedure did not meet standard for extraordinary cause to exceed § 5505 period |
Key Cases Cited
- Fleetwood Area School Dist. v. Berks Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 821 A.2d 1268 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (30‑day modification limit under § 5505 and limits on court alteration of final orders)
- City of Philadelphia Police Dep’t v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 702 A.2d 878 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (court loses jurisdiction to change an order once final; only technical corrections permitted absent statute)
- DeMarco v. Borough of E. McKeesport, 556 A.2d 977 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (extraordinary cause standard; oversight or failure of judicial process may qualify)
- Duncan v. Dep’t of Transp., 601 A.2d 456 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (after 30 days, vacatur requires extraordinary causes)
- Aivazoglou v. Drever Furnaces, 613 A.2d 595 (Pa. Super.) (judicial extensions of time prohibited absent fraud or equivalent)
- Nernberg & Assocs. v. Coyne, 920 A.2d 967 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (30‑day limitation is jurisdictional and cannot be waived)
- In re Seifass, 651 A.2d 677 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (standard of review in tax sale cases: abuse of discretion, legal error, or lack of substantial evidence)