Pfeifer v. Westmoreland County Tax Claim Bureau
127 A.3d 848
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Appellants are successors to oil-and-gas rights (the Gas Rights) reserved by the Thompsons in an 1902 deed for a ~267-acre tract in Westmoreland County.
- The Westmoreland County Tax Claim Bureau sold the Gas Rights at a 1990 upset tax sale for unpaid taxes; the tax-sale deed was recorded December 26, 1990.
- Appellants did not learn of the sale until 2011–2013 and filed equity exceptions nunc pro tunc and a motion to set aside the sale on March 27, 2013 (over 23 years after the sale).
- Appellants argued the Tax Claim Bureau failed to give proper notice under the Real Estate Tax Sale Law and that the statute of limitations and laches were tolled.
- Appellees (Tax Claim Bureau and subsequent purchasers) maintained notice was proper and the challenge was time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations and barred by laches.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees, finding constructive notice from the recorded deed, compliance with statutory notice/ posting requirements, and that the claim was time-barred and barred by laches. The Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the tax sale void for defective notice under the Real Estate Tax Sale Law? | Appellants: Bureau failed to provide proper notice to successors; additional efforts required. | Appellees: Bureau complied with statutory notice (publication, certified mail, posting); affidavits establish presumption of regularity. | Held: Notice requirements satisfied; recording and affidavit of posting give constructive notice and a presumption of regularity. |
| When does the limitations period to challenge a tax sale begin to run? | Appellants: Limitations should be tolled because they lacked actual notice. | Appellees: Six-year limitations period applies from the date of the tax sale/recording regardless of actual notice. | Held: Six-year statute of limitations applies and was not tolled by lack of actual notice. |
| Is equitable tolling or laches available to excuse the long delay? | Appellants: Doctrine of laches/statute tolled due to lack of awareness of the sale. | Appellees: Appellants slept on their rights; delay caused prejudice and witnesses/records lost. | Held: Laches applies—Appellants failed to exercise due diligence and delay prejudiced Defendants; laches bars relief. |
| Did any procedural or proof deficiencies by the Bureau preclude the presumption of regularity? | Appellants: Bureau file was incomplete; employees lacked recollection, so proof of posting/notice is unreliable. | Appellees: Affidavits and deed recitals suffice; presumption of regularity stands absent contrary evidence. | Held: Affidavit of posting and deed recital constituted conclusive/presumptive evidence of proper notice; Appellants failed to rebut. |
Key Cases Cited
- Poffenberger v. Goldstein, 776 A.2d 1037 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (statute of limitations to challenge tax sale begins at sale; untimely challenges barred)
- Weik v. Estate of Brown, 794 A.2d 907 (Pa. Super. 2002) (recording gives public notice of title transfer)
- Picknick v. Washington County Tax Claim Bureau, 936 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (affidavit of posting creates presumption of regular posting; challenger must rebut)
- Fernandez v. Tax Claim Bureau of Northampton County, 925 A.2d 207 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (tax bureau need only exercise ordinary, common-sense efforts to locate owners for notice—no title search required)
- Kern v. Kern, 892 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2005) (elements for laches: delay from lack of due diligence and prejudice to the other party)
- Wilson v. El-Daief, 964 A.2d 354 (Pa. 2009) (statutory limitations protect defendants from stale claims)