In re Rausch Creek Land, L.P.
59 A.3d 1
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appeal from trial court’s affirmation of a Bureau order denying challenges to delinquent mineral-rights taxes.
- Rausch Creek challenged the Bureau’s tax claims on five mineral-rights parcels tied to DEP surface mining permits.
- Tax parcels identified by DEP permits; taxes for 2009 were unpaid, and absolute letters were issued threatening sale.
- Rausch Creek argued the parcels were surface-mining rights, not real property, and that maps and parcel descriptions were insufficient.
- Bureau denied challenges, directing Rausch Creek to pursue assessment appeals; RETSL §314 allows certain claims not involving appeal issues to be addressed by the Bureau.
- Trial court later held that, as to assessment issues, Rausch Creek should have pursued assessment appeals and collateral attack via the Bureau was precluded; the court also addressed notice and description issues under RETSL §§309, 308, and 405.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over assessment-issues vs. assessment appeals | Rausch Creek argues Bureau has subject-matter jurisdiction to challenge assessments. | Bureau/County argues assessment issues must be raised via assessment appeal; §314 precludes collateral attack. | Bureau lacks jurisdiction for assessment-issues; appeal proper via Board of Assessment Appeals. |
| Sufficiency of Section 309(c) descriptions | Absolute letters do not sufficiently describe parcels under §309(c). | Letters reference parcel numbers, acreage, and DEP permits, enabling identification. | Descriptions sufficient under §309(c) though not matching subsections strictly; identifiers allow identification of mineral rights. |
| Notice to owner under Section 308(a) | Owner not properly identified/notified; mineral-rights owner not addressed. | Owner of mineral rights is the proper notice recipient for these notices; notice was provided. | Owner defined as mineral-rights holder; notices adequate to owner. |
| Relevance of County Code §405 to proceedings | Section 405 requires records to be kept at county seat; argues relevance to record availability. | Maps/outsource records not required to be kept at county seat for these proceedings; irrelevant. | Section 405 is irrelevant to Rausch Creek’s RETSL challenges. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Upset Sale, Tax Claims Bureau of Montg. Cnty., 204 Pa. Super. 409, 205 A.2d 104 (1964) (Pa. Super. 1964) (collateral attack on assessment barred where assessment appeal exists)
- Hanoverian v. Lehigh Cnty. Bd. of Assessment, 701 A.2d 288 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. & App. 1997) (exclusive, mandatory assessment-appeal remedy)
- Montgomery Cnty., 205 A.2d 107 (Pa. Super. 1964) (Pa. Super. 1964) (collateral attack on assessment via Bureau precluded by §314)