In re Consolidated Return of Real Estate Tax Sale Conducted on November 10, 2011 by the Tax Claim Bureau of the County of Luzerne Under Provisions of the Act of July 7, 1947, P.L. 1368 Section 607
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)