W.L. Clemmer v. Fayette County TCB v. J. Brooks
176 A.3d 417
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- William Clemmer (Taxpayer) owned property in Fayette County; taxes of $733.67 were past due.
- Certified-mail notice of an upset tax sale was sent to Taxpayer at his address on file; the certified mailing was returned unclaimed.
- Fayette County Tax Claim Bureau thereafter mailed the 10-day first-class notice to the same address; there was no evidence the Bureau undertook additional searches after the certified mail was returned.
- Taxpayer had been incarcerated in Fayette County Prison since March 24, 2016 (a fact stipulated at the hearing) and did not receive the mailed notices.
- Property sold at upset tax sale to Jason Brooks (Purchaser) on September 19, 2016; Taxpayer petitioned to set aside the sale and the trial court granted relief, finding the Bureau failed to make reasonable efforts to locate Taxpayer.
- Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding the Bureau did not comply with statutory notice requirements (Sections 602 and 607.1 of the Tax Sale Law).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tax Claim Bureau complied with statutory notice and the "reasonable efforts" requirement after certified mail was returned unclaimed | Clemmer: Bureau made no reasonable efforts to locate him (no searches, no file notation); minimal efforts would have shown his incarceration in the county prison located in the same courthouse | Purchaser/Tax Claim Bureau: Reasonable efforts do not require searching prisons; owner had the burden to notify Bureau of incarceration | Held: Bureau failed to show any reasonable efforts; tax sale set aside for noncompliance with Sections 602 and 607.1 |
| Whether Taxpayer had "actual notice" of the sale so strict compliance could be waived | Clemmer: Did not receive posted or mailed notices due to incarceration; no evidence of actual notice of the sale date/time | Purchaser: Taxpayer knew taxes were delinquent and understood property could be sold; this is sufficient actual notice | Held: Knowledge of delinquency and consequences is not equivalent to actual notice of the specific sale date/time; actual notice not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform owner before property is taken for taxes)
- In re Consolidated Reports and Return by Tax Claims Bureau of Northumberland County of Properties, 132 A.3d 637 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (actual notice can excuse strict statutory compliance in some circumstances)
- Smith v. Tax Claim Bureau of Pike County, 834 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (tax sale must strictly comply with statutory notice provisions)
- Maya v. County of Erie Tax Claim Bureau, 59 A.3d 50 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (tax bureau must undertake reasonable efforts; futility is not a defense to failing to search)
- Steinbacher v. Northumberland County Tax Claim Bureau, 996 A.2d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (what constitutes reasonable efforts is fact-specific)