In the Matter of the Report and Return of C.L. Krzysiak, Director of the Crawford County TCB of the Public Sale of Lands and Properties, Advertised to be held the 25th Day of September, 2015 Appeal of: D. Bubna
151 A.3d 292
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Denis Bubna owned Parcel 41 (former elementary school, business D & B Custom Wiring) which was sold at an upset tax sale on September 25, 2015; sale confirmed by decree nisi October 13, 2015. Bubna timely petitioned to set aside the sale.
- Bubna challenged the posting notice, alleging it was not "reasonably secured" (extended ~2 inches beyond a narrow business sign, affixed only with tape, vulnerable to wind/weather) and he had no actual notice.
- Palmetto Posting employee Gerald Atkinson testified he posted the notice on the business sign on August 28, 2015, photographed the posting, and used 3M tape on the top and bottom; he could not recall if staples were used. He described the paper as thick/durable.
- Several neighbors and an employee testified they never observed the notice while visiting/mowing the property; after the sale one employee found the notice on the ground near the sign with tape still attached and preserved it.
- The trial court found the Bureau met its burden of strict compliance with statutory notice requirements and rejected Bubna’s contrary evidence; the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bubna) | Defendant's Argument (Bureau) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the posting was "reasonably secured" under the Real Estate Tax Sale Law | Posting was not reasonably secured: only two pieces of tape, tape not shown to be weatherproof or adhesive to wood, notice overhung narrow sign and could be blown away | Atkinson’s testimony, field report, and photograph show the notice was posted on sign and taped top/bottom with "very adhesive" 3M tape; notice later found with tape attached | Held: Posting was reasonably secured; Bureau met burden of strict compliance; trial court’s credibility findings upheld |
| Whether owner produced sufficient contrary evidence to rebut Bureau’s prima facie case | Neighbors and employee never saw the notice when passing/working at property; employee later found notice on ground | Bureau: record evidence (poster’s testimony, photo, field report, mailed notices) sufficient; absence of unbiased witnesses observing posting not dispositive | Held: Owner’s evidence insufficient to overcome Bureau’s proof; credibility and weight were for factfinder |
| Whether case law requires specific fastening methods (staples, anchors, weatherproof materials) | Argues Wiles and Hunter distinguishable; asserts specific anchors/staples or wood‑adhesive tape required | Bureau: Law does not prescribe particular method; reasonableness depends on facts (location, placement); prior cases reject strict mechanical requirements | Held: No specific fastening method required; court followed practical, case‑by‑case reasonableness standard |
| Whether trial court abused discretion or erred as matter of law in finding strict compliance | Contends trial court misapplied precedents and ignored vulnerability of posting | Bureau: trial court’s factual findings supported by record; appellate review limited to abuse of discretion/clear error | Held: No abuse of discretion or clear error; appellate court affirmed trial court order |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiles v. Washington County Tax Claim Bureau, 972 A.2d 24 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (adopts practical/commonsense, fact‑specific approach to whether posting is reasonable and conspicuous)
- Hunter v. Washington County Tax Bureau, 729 A.2d 142 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (Law does not require weatherproof materials or particular posting materials; lack of such materials does not defeat notice absent evidence notice became illegible)
- Consolidated Return by McKean County Tax Claim Bureau ex rel. Howard, 820 A.2d 900 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (manner of attachment is outcome‑determinative; insufficient testimony about how notice was secured can defeat proof of reasonable posting)