In re Sale of Real Estate by Lackawanna County Tax Claim Bureau
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 230
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellants acquired the Property at a delinquent tax sale in 1999; unpaid taxes from 1999–2002 led to an upset sale attempt on January 29, 2002, which did not sell the Property.
- On January 7, 2010, the Bureau petitioned to expose the Property to judicial sale and a Rule to Show Cause was issued for the February 12, 2010 hearing.
- The court ordered the Property to be sold at judicial sale on February 22, 2010 (continued to March 22, 2010), at which Carmadella bid $25,000.
- On June 2, 2010, Appellants moved to set aside the judicial sale asserting lack of notice and invalid service; the Bureau answered; a hearing was held on July 27, 2010.
- Witnesses testified that service was performed by a state constable (Genell) appointed to serve the Rule and petition; service was on Appellants’ son at their place of business, not at residence or employer’s address.
- The trial court denied the petition to set aside, found service proper under County Resolution 09-0147, and concluded notice via published notices satisfied the 30-day requirement; Appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of the Rule and petition complied with Section 611 of the Tax Sale Law. | Rinaldi(s) contend service by a state constable violated §611. | Bureau asserts valid service under §611 via constable. | Service invalid under §611; requires sheriff. |
| Whether service on Appellants’ son at their place of business satisfies §611. | Rinaldi(s) argue improper service since not on residence/employer address. | Bureau contends service at usual place of business suffices. | Service invalid under §611; cannot rely on family member at business. |
| Whether §616’s timing requirement is mandatory or directory and its effect on validity of the sale. | Rinaldi(s) claim §616 is mandatory to void the sale if not timely filed. | Bureau argues §616 is directory; noncompliance not void. | §616 is directory; noncompliance did not void the sale. |
| Whether failure to petition within one year permits dismissal or is cured by notice; whether actual notice cures invalid service. | Actual notice could cure defective service. | No cure for invalid service; statute requires proper service. | Court will not consider actual notice; invalid service stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Nomination of Blount, 898 A.2d 1181 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (notice and service issues in tax matters)
- Fraisar v. Gillis, 892 A.2d 74 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (personal jurisdiction depends on proper service)
- Aldhelm, Inc. v. Schuylkill Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 879 A.2d 400 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005) (strict notice provisions subject to interpretation)
- Stanford-Gale v. Tax Claim Bureau of Susquehanna Cnty., 816 A.2d 1214 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003) (notice requirements tightly construed)
- Fishkin v. Hi-Acres, Inc., 462 Pa. 309 (1975) (distinguishes mandatory vs. directory timing provisions)
- Francis v. Corleto, 418 Pa. 417 (1965) (statutory 'shall' interpretation and timing)