Sanders v. Westmoreland County Tax Claim Bureau
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 268
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Rowe owned the Greensburg property but unpaid taxes led to an upset tax sale that produced no bids and the property entered the county repository.
- Sanders submitted a $7,225 bid in December 2011, paid the bid and recording fee, but the sale was denied because Rowe paid all taxes and costs in full.
- The Bureau informed Sanders it would refund the purchase price, and no binding contract with Sanders existed due to lack of required consents.
- Sanders filed suit in February 2013 seeking mandamus and declaratory relief; summary judgment motions followed, with Rowe prevailing.
- The trial court granted Rowe summary judgment and dismissed Sanders’ complaint with prejudice; on appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the judgment.
- The central issues concern whether Rowe could redeem her property after the upset sale and whether Sanders had a binding contract to purchase the property, given statutory consent requirements under RETSL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rowe’s payment to redeem constitutes redemption extinguishing Sanders’ rights | Sanders argues Rowe’s redemption absent a binding sale; Bureau should have allowed Sanders to purchase. | Rowe’s redemption was permissible; the Bureau had discretion to accept redemption despite no binding contract. | Redemption valid; Sanders had no binding contract. |
| Whether Sanders had a binding purchase contract to acquire the Property | Sanders contends he had a binding agreement once the upset sale produced no bids. | No binding contract existed because consent from taxing districts was not obtained. | No binding contract; consent was lacking. |
| Whether the Bureau had authority to sell to Sanders absent tax district consents | Sanders asserts the Bureau could bind-sell without proper approvals. | Section 627(a) requires written consent of taxing districts; without it, no sale authority. | Bureau had no authority to transfer absent consent; decision upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sprock, 795 A.2d 1100 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002) (outlines RETSL upset sale and redemption mechanics)
- Tracy v. County of Chester, 489 A.2d 1334 (Pa. 1985) (tax sales and forfeiture context; purpose of RETSL)
- Hess v. Westerwick, 76 A.2d 745 (Pa. 1950) (tax sale forfeiture principles; policies for tax collection)
- Ross Appeal, 76 A.2d 749 (Pa. 1950) (premise that strict RETSL provisions are not to punish inadvertent taxpayer error)
- Pacella v. Washington Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 10 A.3d 422 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (redemption rights post-upset sale; distinguishing actual sale status)
- In re Public Sale of Props., 841 A.2d 619 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2004) (case on redemption vs. sale processes; setting aside sale)
- Rivera v. Carbon Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 857 A.2d 208 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2004) (redemption timing and rights; court treatment of redemption post-upset sale)
- McGaffic v. City of New Castle, 973 A.2d 1047 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (mandatory procedures for municipal contracting power; owner contracting with government)