Keller v. McGowan
29 A.3d 436
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Keller purchased 14 city parcels in Lackawanna County between 2006 and 2008 and later faced notices of delinquent city taxes and fees from the City, Treasurer, and a collection agency.
- Keller challenges the City’s attempts to collect these unpaid amounts, including interest and attorneys’ fees, as to the parcels long after ownership transferred.
- Keller argued that, under the Tax Liens Act and related 1959 and 1951 Acts, the City could not file or pursue claims for years beyond three years and that delayed claims affect lien priority or validity depending on ownership.
- Keller contended that, as an innocent intervening purchaser, he is shielded from liens that predate his ownership because the City failed to file timely claims.
- The trial court dismissed Keller’s declaratory judgment action with prejudice after sustaining the Treasurer’s preliminary objections and following a summary-judgment-era posture with unresolved objections.
- On appeal, the Superior Court recognized the absence of a formal summary judgment or trial verdict and treated the order as a demurrer-like ruling, reversing and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delayed municipal claims bar collection against an intervening purchaser | Keller argues the City’s late filing invalidates or vitiates liens against him as an intervening purchaser. | Treasurer contends no statute of limitations bars filing or collection; Sanft allows late filing with priority effects only. | Keller states a claim; liens may be lost, and remand required |
| Whether the City is forever barred from pursuing unpaid taxes/fees against Keller due to timing | Keller asserts forever-loss of lien against the properties for pre-owned taxes not timely filed. | Treasurer maintains no bar on filing or collecting; the lien priority may be affected but not eliminated as a matter of law. | Lien loss to intervening purchaser is plausible; remand for further fact development |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanft v. Borough of West Grove, 63 Pa.Cmwlth. 366, 437 A.2d 1332 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (three-year limitation for filing municipal claims; late filings may be allowed with protections for intervening purchasers)
- Mazur v. Trinity Area School Dist., 599 Pa. 232, 961 A.2d 96 (Pa. 2008) (de novo review of preliminary objections; plenary scope)
- Connor v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 601 Pa. 577, 975 A.2d 1084 (Pa. 2009) (standard of review for appellate review of trial court decisions)