U.S. National Bank Association v. United Hands Community Land Trust ~ Appeal of: W. Cascone
129 A.3d 627
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- U.S. Bank National Association (Trustee) filed a petition under the Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act (MCTLA) seeking sale of 2021 E. Susquehanna Ave. for unpaid municipal taxes; trial court granted sale and judgment in October 2013.
- Trustee’s process server, Keith Muhammed, filed an affidavit stating the petition was posted on the property on September 3, 2013; Muhammed could not recall the exact posting location.
- Property sold at sheriff’s sale February 20, 2014; purchaser paid in March 2014. Wesley Cascone filed to set aside the sale on July 18, 2014, claiming he never received notice, had filed a quiet-title action with a lis pendens in August 2013, and later obtained and recorded a deed.
- At the October 28, 2014 hearing, witnesses for Cascone testified they did not see any posting on the property that day; Trustee relied on Muhammed’s affidavit and testimony.
- Trial court denied Cascone’s petition, concluding Cascone lacked standing under MCTLA §39.2(b) because he had not registered his interest and Trustee had complied with notice requirements. Commonwealth Court reversed and remanded, holding Trustee failed to prove posting on the property’s “most public part.”
Issues
| Issue | Cascone's Argument | Trustee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether posting requirement of MCTLA §39.2(a)(1) was satisfied (petition must be posted on the property’s “most public part”) | Muhammed’s testimony and affidavit were insufficient; witnesses saw no posting; therefore posting was not on the most public part and notice was inadequate | Muhammed’s affidavit and testimony established posting and compliance with §39.2(a)(1) | Court: Trustee failed to prove posting on the most public part; testimony was non-specific and affidavit from a private process server did not create presumption of regularity — posting requirement not shown |
| Whether Cascone lacked statutory standing under §39.2(b) because he did not register or record interest before decree | Cascone argued statutory protection did not apply because notice was inadequate and he had filed a lis pendens and later obtained title | Trustee argued Cascone did not register or record interest timely and thus lacks standing to challenge notice | Court: Because Trustee failed to prove proper posting, trial court erred in finding Cascone lacked standing under §39.2(b); standing inquiry depends on statutory notice compliance |
| Whether presumption of regularity attaches to affidavit of posting by the server | Cascone: presumption does not apply because affidavit lacked detail and server was a private agent; testimony insufficient | Trustee: affidavit and testimony suffice to raise presumption of proper posting | Court: Presumption of regularity applies to public officers, not private process servers; here it was inapplicable and affidavit alone did not prove posting location |
| Whether Cascone’s later-recorded deed or lis pendens confer equitable/common-law standing to set aside the sale | Cascone: his recorded deed and lis pendens (filed before sale) give him standing to challenge the sale | Trustee: standing governed exclusively by MCTLA registration/recording requirements; Cascone failed to satisfy them | Court: Statutory scheme governs standing; Cascone’s common-law arguments do not supplant statute, but because Trustee failed to prove proper notice court still allowed Cascone to proceed (did not base ruling on common-law standing) |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Philadelphia v. Manu, 76 A.3d 601 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (trial court must independently confirm MCTLA notice requirements were met; strict compliance required)
- Picknick v. Washington County Tax Claim Bureau, 936 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (affidavit of public officer gives rise to presumption of regularity for postings)
- Hughes v. Chaplin, 132 A.2d 200 (Pa. 1957) (origin of presumption that public officers perform duties regularly)
- Wiles v. Washington County Tax Claim Bureau, 972 A.2d 24 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (posting-location analysis is fact-specific)
- Kirkwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 525 A.2d 841 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (legal sufficiency of evidence is a question of law)
- Petty v. Hospital Service Association of Northeastern Pennsylvania, 23 A.3d 1004 (Pa. 2011) (standing is governed by the statute’s text)