In Re Somerset County Tax Sale of Real Estate Assessed in the Name of Tub Mill Farms, Inc.
14 A.3d 180
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2010Background
- Tub Mill Farms owned approximately 100 acres in Elk Lick Township, Somerset County.
- On September 15, 2009, the property was exposed to tax sale for delinquent real estate taxes; John Oliver bid and purchased for $10,826.88.
- Tub Mill petitioned to set aside the tax sale, alleging improper posting under Section 602(e)(3) of RETSL.
- The posting involved attaching a tax sale notice to a 2–2.5 foot stake and pounding it into the ground along the road, between property boundaries.
- Notice size was approximately 5–6 inches by 11–12 inches; the posting location was roughly halfway between the boundary lines and about 100 yards from Tub Mill’s driveway.
- The trial court held the posting did not satisfy 602(e)(3) and ordered a full refund to Oliver; the Bureau appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did posting comply with 602(e)(3) RETSL? | Tub Mill contends posting was not conspicuous or reasonably calculated to inform the public. | Bureau contends posting along the road, halfway between boundaries, was reasonable and conspicuous. | Yes; posting satisfied 602(e)(3). |
| Does actual notice to the record owner cure defective posting? | Actual notice should cure posting defects for owner. | Actual notice does not cure public-notice defects; posting must inform the public. | No; actual notice does not cure posting defects, but posting in this case was still sufficient. |
| Is a posting location away from the driveway allowed if it is road-visible and reasonable? | Posting near the driveway would have been more conspicuous. | Statutory posting does not require driveway proximity; reasonable posting suffices. | Yes; posting along the road and visible from the road is sufficient; location depends on property and circumstances. |
| Was the trial court’s legal standard correctly applied to evaluate notice? | Trial court correctly evaluated notice against the statute’s standards. | Trial court applied an incorrect standard by focusing on ideal posting rather than reasonable and conspicuous posting. | Trial court erred; posting was reasonable and conspicuous. |
| Did the evidence establish that the posting was reasonably conspicuous given the property's nature? | Weeds and embankment could obscure the notice. | Notice was attached to a stake facing the road and visible; obstruction by weeds was not guaranteed. | Posting was reasonably conspicuous under the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiles v. Washington Co. Tax Claim Bureau, 972 A.2d 24 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (posting must be conspicuous and likely to inform taxpayer and public)
- In re Upset Sale Tax Claim Bureau McKean Co. on Sept. 10, 2007, 965 A.2d 1248 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007) (location and conspicuity factors; notice serves public and owner)
- O'Brien v. Lackawanna Co. Tax Claim Bureau, 889 A.2d 127 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005) (posting defect may require invalidating sale if not public notice)
- Ban v. Tax Claim Bureau of Washington Co., 698 A.2d 1386 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1997) (posting must face road and be conspicuous)
- Hunter v. Washington Co. Tax Bureau, 729 A.2d 142 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999) (posting requirements and public notice factors)
- Lapp v. Co. of Chester, 445 A.2d 1356 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1982) (posting sufficient when facing road or public way)
- In re Tax Sale of Real Property Situate in Paint Twp., Somerset Co., 865 A.2d 1009 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005) (contextual framework for notice sufficiency)