T. L. Barker and J. Barker v. Chester County TCB and CJD Group, LLC
143 A.3d 1069
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- Thomas and Julia Barker owned multiple parcels; two (356 Church St. and 153 E. Morgan St.) were listed for an upset tax sale scheduled for September 9, 2013.
- On September 5, 2013 Thomas Barker paid $15,000 and executed an "Installment Agreement" with the Chester County Tax Claim Bureau covering eight properties; the agreement continued the scheduled sale to December 9, 2013 and stated sales would be "stayed for 2013" if the agreement was complied with.
- The $15,000 was apportioned among eight parcels; plaintiffs contend this constituted a Section 603 payment (25% trigger) for at least the two parcels then scheduled for sale.
- The Tax Claim Bureau treated the paperwork as a 90-day extension (not a Section 603 agreement), asserted the Barkers were ineligible for Section 603 because of a purported default under a 2010 agreement, and did not give written notice of any default.
- The two parcels were sold at the December 9, 2013 upset sale; the Barkers sued to set aside the sale.
- The trial court upheld the sale; the Commonwealth Court reversed, holding the Bureau failed to comply with Section 603 requirements and due-process notice obligations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barkers defaulted on the 2010 installment agreement | Barkers paid the full 2010 balance by the final due date and thus did not default; no written notice of default was ever given | Bureau: late interim payments constituted a default, disqualifying Barkers from Section 603 relief | Bureau failed to prove a 2010 default; noncompliance with Section 603 notice rules precluded treating them as ineligible |
| Whether the Sept. 5, 2013 payment/ agreement required a Section 603 stay of the Sept. 9 sale | The $15,000 payment and request to stay the sale triggered Section 603 protections for at least the two parcels up for sale | Bureau: the $15,000 was less than 25% of total owed across all eight parcels, so Section 603 did not apply; Bureau could offer an alternative 90-day extension | Court: Barkers were entitled to Section 603 treatment as to the two parcels up for sale; Bureau had obligation to offer Section 603 and stay sale of those properties |
| Whether the Bureau satisfied Section 603's default/notice procedures before proceeding to sale | Barkers: Bureau never sent written default notice as required; therefore sale was invalid | Bureau: treated agreement as non-Section 603 and relied on Section 601 continuance authority | Held: Bureau did not comply with Section 603 notice requirements and could not proceed under Section 601 to sell parcels that should have been removed from sale under Section 603 |
| Whether Section 601 authorized the sale despite Section 603 issues | Bureau: Section 601 lets bureau continue sales to year-end and sell if property not removed under Section 603 | Barkers: Section 601 does not override Section 603 protections once triggered | Held: Section 601 did not authorize sale where Section 603 protections applied; sale reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanford–Gale v. Tax Claim Bureau of Susquehanna County, 816 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (tax-sale statute construed to protect property owners and enforce statutory compliance)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (due process requires adequate notice before property is taken for tax delinquency)
- Smith v. Tax Claim Bureau of Pike County, 834 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (failure to comply with every statutory requirement can nullify a tax sale)
- In Re Consolidated Return of the Tax Claim Bureau of the County of Beaver, 105 A.3d 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (25% payment triggers Section 603 option and bureau must advise taxpayer of that option)
- Darden v. Montgomery County Tax Claim Bureau, 629 A.2d 321 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (standard of review for tax-claim-bureau actions)