Shipley v. Tax Claim Bureau of Delaware County
74 A.3d 1101
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- John Shipley was the sole record owner of 600 E. 9th Street (the Property), purchased during his marriage to Rochelle Shipley; Rochelle contributed funds, paid taxes, ran a business there, and moved out in 2011.
- Delaware County Tax Claim Bureau (Bureau) sought a judicial tax sale; a Rule to Show Cause was mailed March 9, 2010 to John’s last known New Castle address and later certified letters were sent in July 2011 to two Delaware addresses; several mailings were returned or marked undeliverable.
- The Bureau sold the Property at judicial tax sale on December 14, 2011; purchaser recorded deed January 4, 2012.
- Rochelle filed a Petition to Set Aside the judicial tax sale on January 27, 2012; John joined via an amended petition at the hearing. Purchaser objected to Rochelle’s standing.
- Trial court held Rochelle lacked standing because her name was not on the deed and found the Bureau satisfied statutory notice requirements; the Shipleys appealed.
- Commonwealth Court reversed: it held Rochelle had an equitable ownership interest giving her standing, and the record lacks the Sheriff’s return/receipt required by the statute for service of the Rule to Show Cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge judicial tax sale | Rochelle: had equitable/marital ownership and was aggrieved | Purchaser/Bureau: only record owner on deed may challenge; Rochelle lacked statutory ownership and notice rights | Court: Rochelle had a legally cognizable equitable interest (marital property) and thus standing |
| Compliance with service requirements for Rule to Show Cause (Section 611) | Rochelle: no Sheriff’s return/receipt in record; service defective | Purchaser/Bureau: certified mail evidence to last known addresses satisfied notice | Court: record lacks Sheriff’s return for the Rule; certified letters alone did not meet Section 611; service not shown to comply |
| Applicability of Section 602 notice rules | Rochelle: challenged broader notice compliance | Bureau/Purchaser: Section 602 applies only to upset sales, not judicial sales | Court: Section 602 does not apply to judicial sales; argument rejected as meritless |
| Validity of sale despite defective notice | Rochelle: defective service invalidates sale | Purchaser: sale should stand because Bureau took steps to notify owner | Held: because service under Section 611 is not shown, sale must be set aside (trial court reversed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Plank v. Monroe County Tax Claim Bureau, 735 A.2d 178 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (only an owner or lien creditor at time of sale may file objections)
- Husak v. Fayette County Tax Claim Bureau, 61 A.3d 302 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (equitable title/conferral of standing to challenge tax sale)
- Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth, 888 A.2d 655 (Pa.) (standing requires substantial, direct, immediate interest)
- In re Serfass, 651 A.2d 677 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (Section 602 applies to upset sales, not judicial sales)
- Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Luzerne County Tax Claim Bureau, 56 A.3d 36 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (strict compliance required for tax sale notice/service)
- First Horizon Home Loan Corp. v. Adams County Tax Claim Bureau, 847 A.2d 774 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (no standing when party neither owner nor lienholder at time of sale)