Rakocy v. Clinton County Tax Claim Bureau
109 A.3d 331
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Rakocy owned a landlocked parcel in Clinton County, PA, which was sold at a tax sale on September 30, 2013, and purchased by Saratoga Partners, LP.
- The Tax Claim Bureau mailed certified notice and published notice as required; the sole disputed method was the 10-day posting requirement under 72 P.S. § 5860.602(e)(3).
- Deputy Stover testified he posted the sale notice on a locked gate at the junction of the private drive and Forest Road (public road); he did not post the notice on the interior parcel.
- Rakocy and a neighbor testified the gate was not locked and one neighbor said he did not see a notice on the gate. Rakocy was not present at the property during the posting period.
- Trial court denied Rakocy’s petition to set aside the sale, finding posting reasonably likely to give notice. Rakocy appealed.
- On appeal the Commonwealth Court held Rakocy waived review because his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement was filed one day late. The court affirmed the trial court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of posting under 72 P.S. § 5860.602(e)(3) | Posting on the gate was inadequate because notice was not posted on the property itself and thus did not give proper notice | Posting at the gate where the private drive meets the public road was reasonable and likely to inform owner and public | Court did not reach the merits on appeal; trial court had found posting adequate and would be sustained if reviewed |
| Waiver via untimely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement | Late filing by one day should not bar appellate review of the posting issue | Timely compliance with a 1925(b) order is mandatory; late filing waives issues | Appellate court held the 1925(b) statement was untimely (filed one day late) and, under Castillo/Schofield/Lord precedent, Rakocy waived all issues on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (untimely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement results in automatic waiver absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888 A.2d 771 (Pa. 2005) (affirming waiver rule where timeliness of 1925(b) compliance could not be shown)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (established bright-line rule requiring compliance with 1925(b) orders)
- Hunter v. Washington County Tax Bureau, 729 A.2d 142 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (posting must be likely to inform owner and public; facts distinguishable when property not landlocked)
- In re Tax Sale of 2003 Upset, 860 A.2d 1184 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (posting off the parcel may be adequate if reasonably likely to be seen by owner and public)