163 A.3d 1072
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Michael Grudsky owned a campsite lot in Lackawanna County; the property was sold at an upset tax sale on September 29, 2014, for unpaid 2012–2013 taxes.
- The Lackawanna County Tax Claim Bureau sent certified mail notice to 3089 Brighton 6th St., Brooklyn, NY; the certified mailing was returned unclaimed.
- The Bureau then searched county records (assessor, prothonotary, recorder of deeds) and Pennsylvania voter rolls, found the same Brighton address, and sent a second notice by first-class mail to that address (not returned).
- Grudsky testified his actual address was 215 Amherst St., Brooklyn, NY; Brighton address was his deceased parents’ former home and had been subdivided into apartments.
- The trial court found the Brighton address was Grudsky’s proper mailing address and denied his petition to set aside the sale.
- On appeal the Commonwealth Court held the Bureau failed to perform a statutorily required search of current county telephone directories under 72 P.S. §5860.607a and therefore did not prove it made "reasonable efforts" to discover the owner’s whereabouts; the sale was set aside.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Tax Claim Bureau violated the Tax Sale Law by not searching current telephone directories after the certified notice was returned unclaimed | Grudsky: Bureau failed to make the statutorily required search of county telephone directories and thus did not make "reasonable efforts" to discover/notify him | Bureau: Because Grudsky was a New York resident and the Bureau had the correct (Brooklyn) address, a county phone-book search in Lackawanna was unnecessary and futile | Held: Bureau must perform the directory search listed in §607.1; failure to do so means it did not prove it made "reasonable efforts." Sale set aside |
| Whether the Bureau’s failure to date or fully document its searches in the file invalidated the sale | Grudsky: file lacked dated/adequate documentation of searches, undermining proof of reasonable efforts | Bureau: argued its searches and file were sufficient (trial court did not credit Grudsky on other grounds) | Held: Court reversed on directory-search ground and did not decide the documentation claim (no need to reach it) |
Key Cases Cited
- Donofrio v. Northampton County Tax Claim Bureau, 811 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (notice provisions must be strictly construed).
- Casaday v. Clearfield County Tax Claim Bureau, 627 A.2d 257 (Pa. 1993) (burden on bureau to prove strict compliance with notice statute).
- In re Tax Sale of Real Property Situated in Jefferson Township, 828 A.2d 475 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (bureau not required to do more when satisfied it has correct address — distinguished).
- Maya v. County of Erie Tax Claim Bureau, 59 A.3d 50 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (statutory list of searches in §607.1 must be taken seriously; reasonable efforts required even if likely futile).
- Grove v. Franklin County Tax Claim Bureau, 705 A.2d 162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (set aside sale where bureau failed to document a reasonable search after return of certified mail).
- Steinbacher v. Northumberland County Tax Claim Bureau, 996 A.2d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (statutory searches required regardless of apparent futility).