*1 Lamar is not Accordingly, because under Section

entitled to indemnification not and because he did

8548 of the Code representation for request

make a written 8547(a) Code, required by

as Section did not err

we conclude that the trail court District’s motion for granting School pleadings. The order

judgment on the is affirmed.6

the trial court

ORDER November, NOW, day

AND this 3rd April 2003 order of the Court Allegheny County Pleas of

of Commomn

AFFIRMED. BY

In re SALE OF REAL ESTATE TAX CLAIM BU

MONTGOMERY DELINQUENT

REAU FOR 1997

TAXES. Realty Corp,

Exceptions Parcel of JUL Exceptions

# 12-00-02740-00-2

Mary Price Parcel #40-00-43312-00-

1. Realty Corp

Appeal of JUL Price. Pennsylvania. Court of

Commonwealth 8, 2003.

Submitted on Briefs Oct.

Decided Nov. 2003. En

Reargument Banc Denied

Dec. 2003. Court, applied pleadings whether the law as his to this Lamar sets forth In brief judgment. Glo- clearly entitles the movant to be mixed 20 statements that considers fact, complaint against the School pre- ver. As Lamar’s questions of law and which would and we grounded in the Code pleadings District was entry judgment clude does that the Code reviewing agree with the trial court When of the School District. favor recovery Lamar’s alle- permit in this grant decision to a motion the trial court’s questions fact and outstanding gation of pleadings, we are limited to judgment on the merit. determining law is without reviewing pleadings *2 properly post Bureau failed

Claim Taxpayer appeared and that the property, the delin- parcel was told that the taxes and quent *3 13, 1999. Michael September on was sold Candido, and Home- Singer, Michael Povlow, Inc., Concepts, and Irvin owner’s properties, intervened purchasers of the and filed answers. evidence with re- parties presented

The January at a spect properties to both Tax the trial court. hearing 2001 before Grabois, Ambler, appel- Marshall L. for Supervisor Sharon Hetrick Claim Bureau lants. her records that the tax testified from Bell, ap- P. Blue for Coughlin, Michael upset properties question pellees. advertised, proper by sent notices mail, prop- that the certified and first-class COLINS, Judge, BEFORE: President posted, and that the owner erties were McGINLEY, Judge, and and SMITH- personally occupant of the RIBNER, PELLEGRINI, Judge, and re- notice of the sale. With served with LEADBETTER, Judge, and Judge, and service, spect posting to and COHN, LEAVITT, Judge, Judge. and evi- Bureau introduced into Claim service. dence the sheriffs affidavits of BY Judge OPINION President property respect With to the residential COLINS. Road, Gulph on Sheriffs Old Realty Corpora- Mary Price1 and JUL daily log Conway testified from his James (Taxpayers) appeal tion the order prop- that he the front door of Montgomery Court of Common Pleas of using erty July 7:45 a.m. on at County denying exceptions their to confir- attempt- that he tape. scotch He testified upset mation of the tax sale of the real Price and on personally serve Ms. ed to property Gulph located at 394 Old Road wrote, of service he “Would the affidavit and 145 Narberth Avenue in Lower Mer- Left as a refusal.” On not come to door. Township delinquent ion taxes. examination, Conway direct testified Price, Mary owner of home at the Old then on the front door and he knocked address, Gulph Road is the sole sharehold- through side-door which went to the kitchen, Realty Corporation, er and owner of JUL in the but Mary observed Price Nar- building which owned an office at the answer the door. that she did not exceptions cross-examination, Conway acknowledged berth Avenue address. The parcels that the tax he testi- deposition, filed for both averred that in June 13, 1999, 1) September on on the front sale was conducted fied that he knocked he observed Ms. Taxpayer through that notices to the indicated which 2) he observed Ms. kitchen and was scheduled for her driveway. in her County yellow Tax Price’s Cadillac Montgomery Mary John A. Price for substitute executor During pendency of this died, 502(a). August pursuant dated R.A.P. party Price 2003, order Price as granted application an this court acknowledged He on gone cross-examination he to Norristown to the taxes on did not believe that Ms. Price saw or that date. heard knocking him if had because she would July day Deputy As for (Transcript, p. have answered the door. Conway allegedly posted per- notice and 93.) sonally served her notice of sale, Ms. Price testified that she was not respect With commercial home at that day 7:30 a.m. on because she Avenue, on Narberth Deputy Conway tes- every day attends mass at 7:30 a.m. daily log tified from his that he arrived at only rarely, days misses mass as on when a.m. 8:30 prevent her exiting snow storms from her notice of the tax sale on the *4 driveway. testified that from her She front door. He stated that as he was door, front one cannot see into her kitchen. premises about to enter the he saw Ms. She testified she remembered meet- pull up behind his vehicle and that ing Conway in front of the Narberth Ave- personally he then served her with notice property nue and that he handed her one cross-examination, of the tax sale. On documents, up or more he did not go but Conway acknowledged that during June to the front and neither she nor her deposition point 2000 he stated at one anything posted tenants saw on the front posted he immediately the notice and then property. door of the acknowledged She removed it and it handed to Ms. Price that she drives a white Lincoln and never personal when he effected service of the yellow owned a Cadillac. She testified point tax sale notice and another that when she returned home at the end of pulled up stated that when Ms. Price be- day, posted anything the she did not see hind his vehicle he served her with both on the front door. the personal notice and the service Conway acknowledged presented, notice. that at the Based the evidence the on in question practice time his was to hand trial court found that the sale date on the person both if notices a property required legible notices owner the to normally owner answered his knock or was other- with normal or corrected vision. It found that filled out present premises. (Transcript, wise at the posting affidavits of service and 110-111.) p. properties. for both The court concluded Mary Price testified on her own behalf Hollinger Hollinger, on the v. 416 basis Gulph as follows. She has lived at the Old (1965), Pa. 1 the sher- years, Road for 38 and that there is conclusive and immune iffs affidavit is no on the A mortgage home. woman from attack from extrinsic evidence. Hav- years, generally pays by she her bills statutory require- that the ing concluded check, person. acknowledged in She re- in the trial ments were met this court mail ceiving by the tax sale and Taxpayers’ exceptions con- denied the and taxes, money pay delinquent had the to properties. firmed the sale of the pay every her habit taxes as was to Taxpayers year. copies appeal, other From her of the no- raise 1) tices, faintly printed, following be- issues: whether the trial court which were and erred when it September lieved the sale date to be abused its discretion Norristown, sale were concluded that notices of the and she went to Bureau, per properly Tax Claim on that date to sonally. in on Ms. Price and bore a taxes full. Had she served known 2) date, and whether the tax legible she would have sale should be set aside because the suc- issue in this case are the provide posting requirements. cessful bidders did not certification they delinquent were not in real es- 601(a)(3) the Tax Sale Section municipal utility tate taxes or bills. Our provides unequivocal Law terms that no determining review is limited to whether owner-occupied property may be sold un discretion, clearly the trial court abused its personally less the owner has been served law, erred as a matter of or rendered with notice of sale. P.S. unsupported by decision the evidence. 5860.601(a)(3). upon § As relied Washington Hunter v. County Tax Bu- court, states, “in ab Hollinger trial reau, (Pa.Cmwlth.1999). 729 A.2d 142 fraud, sence of the return of service of a Although presumption regu sheriff, full complete which is its sales, larity attaches face, conclusive and immune from attack owner presumption overcomes the whenev by extrinsic evidence.” 416 Pa. at prima er he she states a facie challenge A.2d at 3. The conclusive nature of the compli to the sale based on the agency’s sheriffs return of service is limited to the statutory requirements. ance with tax sale facts stated the return of which the Montgomery Michener County *5 personal sheriff has Id. knowledge. The (Pa.Cmwlth. Bureau, Claim 671 A.2d 286 pre rule of conclusiveness is based on the 1996). impor Because of the fundamental sumption pro that the sheriff acted with process tance of the due considerations priety in the conduct of his official duties. government subjects that arise when the presumption Id. “The is rebuttable and property nonpay citizen’s to forfeiture for yield must if the evidence indicates the taxes, ment agency of that has sold the Sale, contrary.” In re Tax Claim Upset property bears the proving burden of Montgomery County, Bureau 68 Pa. of it complied statutory require notice (1982). Cmwlth. 448 A.2d 699 property ments when owner mounts such a prima facie challenge. case, Id. In the instant the trial court only found filled out Section 602 of the Real Estate 27,1999; July the affidavits of service on (Tax Law),2 Tax Sale Law Sale 72 P.S. findings made no as to whether service 5860.602, § imposes a series of notification In actually effected. our estimation requirements by publication, certified — (without determination), making credibility mail, posting, and in personal some cases Deputy Conway’s testimony constitutes ev a county service—before tax claim bureau idence that contradicts the affidavits. can property sell real for delinquent taxes. provisions The Law’s notice personal are to be The affidavit of for the service construed, strictly states, property and the tax sale is void residential not “Would any face, if required types of notice is come to left as refused.” On its defective. Ban v. Tax Bureau Claim the affidavit does not demonstrate that the of (Pa. service, Washington 698 A.2d County, deputy personal 1386 sheriff effected Cmwlth.1997). pending entirety, Depu- Actual notice of a and when considered in its compliance tax sale strict ty Conway’s testimony support waives with the does not requirements. notice finding v. service was made or Stanford-Gale Susquehanna Tax Claim Bureau Coun that Ms. Price refused service. (Pa.Cmwlth.2003). ty, testimony 1214 that he saw Ms. changed 816 A.2d At his 7, 1947, 2. Act of P.L. as amended.

1042 bore, we must thought the notices peered when he date she Price in her kitchen Bureau failed that the Tax Claim door when he was con- conclude through the front statutory requirements that the kitchen was to meet the fronted with the fact door, and on Ms. Price with ade- provide from the front and failed to not visible quate he stated his belief notice of the sale date. cross-examination knocking him if Ms. Price had heard the tax sale law purpose The The evi- have answered door. would taxes, punish not to to collect overdue support a conclusion that dence does not through oversight omit taxpayers who no- personally served with Ms. Price was taxes, Tracy County error to their Gulph Road tice of the tax sale at the Old Bureau, Chester, Pa. Tax Claim residence. (1985) 288, 297, (quot A.2d Similarly, the affidavits ser 366 Pa. ing Appeal, Ross vice state that notice (1950)), permit real and not to property, at the Narberth Avenue served property to obtain the speculators estate Conway’s testimony indicates but willing and able taxpayers who are if the acknowledged otherwise. He case, in this taxpayer The pay their taxes. premis at the present owner was Price, to be a proven not herself Ms. has es, post practice was to hand both the his willful, long-standing persistent, and notice to notice and ing this the facts of delinquent. Given owner, that when and stated never question should him, he pull up behind he saw Ms. tax sale. exposed have been both of the notices. Because handed her Taxpayers’ claim that The properly posted within property is *6 they were not certify did not buyers unless is meaning of the Sale Law taxes in of real estate delinquent payment the notify both the owner and sufficient to not raised municipal utility bills was or sale, posting pending public large at therefore, court, it was and before the trial satisfy statutory requirement the does not waived. conspicuous such the notice is not when of the trial court Accordingly, the order Ban; In by public. the that it will be seen is reversed. 10, 1990, September Upset re Tax Sale of (1992). 52, 147 Pa.Cmwlth. ORDER finding support a The evidence does not property was NOW, the Narberth Avenue day of November AND this 3rd meaning of the posted within the properly of Common the order of the Court in County Law. the above- Montgomery Pleas captioned matter is reversed. the court found that Although the trial legible to a the notices was sale date on Judge BY OPINION DISSENTING normally corrected with normal or person COHN. vision, Ms. Price wore it also found that interpreta- My I Respectfully, dissent. on the and that the date reading glasses findings the factual of what constitutes noncompli- tion faint. Given the notices was conclu- me to a different in this case leads and posting with the ance According- majority. than that of the sion the unclear sale date requirements, per- I critical facts as I reiterate the notices, ly, Price the fact that Ms. and them to apply then them to be and overdue ceive to the appeared person in law, that for the at the outset noting the the September taxes in full on twenty paid testify that she had misread date. past years, has the real Price found, fact, every a matter of taxes on both other The trial court as estate is, that, year; she them to accumu- was although print allows somewhat years paying late for two before them. light, sale on the notice the date of the tax legible person mail to a by regular Regarding Notice the Commercial normally-corrected vision. with normal or Propertg tax of the Commercial Notice of the sale 17, 1998, April Montgomery On Property published August once on (Bureau) County Tax Claim Bureau sent Herald, in The Norristown Times of Return Re- “Notice and Claim” JUL and Mercury, Pottstown The Mont- The alty mail, receipt certified return re- gomery County Reporter. Law delinquent real quested, showing estate Department Montgom- The Sheriffs year taxes for the tax the amount 1, 1999, ery County responsible serving per- April On Bureau $8455.81. a “Notice of and Deputy sent Return Claim” notice and notice. sonal mail, Realty by certified return re- posting JUL and James handled ceipt showing requested, delinquent real After posting service notices. year taxes for tax 1998 in the estate personally serving or 28, 1999, May amount of notice, $7411.60. with a tax Con- owner sale Realty by Bureau sent notice to certi- JUL an affidavit re- way immediately fills out fied mail of the tax sale. The notice indi- fleeting posting the circumstances of the Property cated that the would Commercial regard to personal service. With September sold at a tax be Deputy Conway’s Property, Commercial Price she 1999. admits that received the 27, 1999, affidavit stated that on However, above notices. when she read a.m., he approximately 8:30 visited the date of the tax on the certified prop- Property Commercial notice, September mail it was thought she erty personally served Price with no- instead tice of the sale. pointed years out that is 73 old Regarding Notice the Residential wears reading glasses. She did not *7 reviewing ever the recall notices while wearing her glasses. The trial court 28,1999, May the Bureau sent notice found, fact, that, as a matter although of Property the tax sale of the Residential of print on the the notices was somewhat by The notice indi- to Price certified mail. fight, the date of the tax sale on the notice Property that would cated the Residential by legible person certified mail to a was 13, Price September sold on 1999. be normal normally-corrected or vision. by that she received the notice admits However, again, Price did mail. certified by

Notice first class mail was sent to 27, reading glasses and she not have on her Realty on 1999.1 August JUL Price thought that the of the tax sale was date acknowledged that received this notice 15, 1999, September September instead produced original well. Price the notice as 13, found, as a mat- hearing. first class mail did 1999. The trial court by at the She 1368, amended, point July as Purchasers first class mail P.L. 1. out that Here, 5860.602(e)(2). dispute there is no only required Bureau does P.S. is if the not notice accomplished. The receipt" that certified mail was the certified “return receive mail Bureau, nevertheless, first class mail bearing sent the signature. the See Section owner’s Law, 602(e)(2) Act notice also. of the Real Estate Sale fact, notice, ter of the although that Both were at a tax sale properties sold light print, legible per- 13, somewhat was ato on 1999. Price September attempted normally-corrected son with normal or vi- September to pay delinquent the taxes on sion. purchased Both 1999. were Candidio, Povlow, by Mi- Michael Irvin E. Although by regular notice mail is not chael Singer Concepts, and Homeowners statute, required by the the Bureau sent (Purchasers). exceptions Inc. Price filed notice on August such 1999. This no- sale, to the tax which the trial court denied tice also that the indicated Residential following hearing. appeal followed.2 This Property at a tax upset would be sold Price on 1999. admits that Property A. Commercial by regular she received notice mail. argues majority agrees Price and the Again, testify she did not that she misread tax sale be- should be set aside the tax sale on this notice. trial date The cause notice of of the posted the tax sale court, again, found as a matter of fact that Property improper. Commercial was the date the tax sale on the mail regular legible person notice was to a with normal Purchasers contend the trial court normally-corrected vision. posted was in determining correct proper chal- cannot be Notice of of the the tax sale Residential lenged because the Bureau submitted Property was on published August once affidavit. They sheriffs assert publications in the identical in which is proof sheriffs affidavit conclusive publication Prop- notice of the Commercial collaterally cannot at- posting and be erty was achieved. The sheriffs tacked. affidavit stated that Deputy Conway also handled posting the Commercial on Property the tax service of of the 27,1999, July a.m., signed at 8:30 and is Property. According Residential his af- Conway. Deputy fidavit, Deputy Conway posted a notice of decision, on In reaching tax sale the main front its the trial court door Hollinger Hollinger, Residential at 7:45 a.m. on relied 416 Pa. (1965), proposition also knocked on for the per- the main that he information in the sher- front door so could contained sonally serve Price -with notice the tax iffs and cannot be affidavit conclusive court, sale, response. collaterally but received no attacked. The trial thus, permit then challenge went to the kitchen door and did not Price to correctly knocked states through majority there. He saw affidavit. The knocked, principles Hollinger door when he but as to the legal she did respond. Deputy Conway then nature of sheriffs affidavit conclusive *8 the tax notice manner in which that conclusive- copy service of But, goes main ness rebutted. it then on front door returned an can be state, Affidavit “Deputy .testimony of that con- Conway’s Service stated affi- “would not as a that contradicts the come left stitutes evidence part It I Slip op. p. refusal.” is here that davits.” County, 651 Dauphin 2. The review in tax cases is Bureau standard of Claim of (Pa.Cmwlth.1994), court limited to whether the trial discretion, abused its petition al- A.2d 1157 for 650, a decision a lack of denied, rendered appeal 664 544 Pa. lowance of evidence, clearly supporting or as a erred (1995). A.2d 978 matter of Matter the Tax law. Sales of

1045 First, posted in notice was not company majority. de- averred that with the testimony ciding Conway’s compliance statutory that Sheriff in with the achieved evidence, majority has By constituted such in provisions as set forth the Law. decision, credibility made a crucial which so, appear- contrary Price raised a doing Second, permitted we are not to do. Hol- in the information stated ance as to in linger Although must be read context. Bu- Consequently, the sheriffs affidavit. instructive, in generally, the case is ex- burden reau and Purchasers then had the of plaining the conclusiveness documents showing compliance. They submitted in by public executed officers the course of called the affidavit and duties, their there is a fine cases However, because testify on this issue. addresses, specifically, more the conclu- trial court determined that the affida- in siveness of sheriffs affidavit the con- conclusive, findings it made no vit was cases, In text of tax sales. such there credibility as to or determinations fact presumption prima exists a facie Deputy Conway’s testimony. officers, public regularity the acts of hearing January At the contrary appears. until Thomas v. events, eighteen almost months after the Bureau,

Montgomery County Tax Claim testified, on direct exami- 371, (1989), 123 Pa.Cmwlth. 553 A.2d 1044 nation, posted that he the notice of the tax denied, petition appeal allowance 652, (1989). building front door of the prop- 523 Pa. 567 A.2d 655 A sale on the (N.T., erty presumption Property. January owner can overcome the the Commercial sale, .) “[b]y filing exceptions p. to a tax aver- Hearing, 2001 105 He next stated ring provisions car, the statutory that, upon seeing up Price drive her with, complied were not creat- [and thus he had a brief conversation with her and ing] contrary appearance.” Ali v. Mont no- then handed her the Bureau, gomery County Tax Claim 124 (N.T., January Hearing, p. tice.3 2001 (1989). Pa.Cmwlth. 37 107.) cross-examination, Deputy Con- bureau, tax claim purchaser Then the or a way taped that he the notice on the stated arguing proper, that the tax sale was has (N.T., January front 2001 Hear- door. the burden of proving claim 113.) ing, p. Upon questioning, further he complied provisions. bureau with the notice up said that when he saw Price drive Upset Price Tax Sale of Property, her car to the Commercial he (Sortino) 1990 County Delaware Tax might posted have taken the notice off the Bureau, Pa.Cmwlth.52, Claim per- door and handed both the (1992). A.2d I believe these cases are impending tax sonal service notices of the applicable more to the current matter and her, Property to sale of the Commercial provide legal framework should be off. might have taken the notice used here. (N.T., p. 119- January Hearing, 120.) “In this Specifically, states: Applying judice, this law to the case sub there, property, I I exceptions up I note that Price filed to the tax went and I [Price]. sale of the Commercial and turned around saw residence, ing require person- required to be does not 3. Personal service notice is *9 Rather, owner-occupant on Price. served on a of a al service notice be served Law, only required that pursuant 72 P.S. Bureau is to show to Section 601 of the the notice, 5860.601; notice, is, published personal § and service notice certified mail accomplished pursuant to residing posted were must be served on the owner the property. Property, not be- Section 602 of Law. The Commercial affidavit, copy, by Deputy I her gave posted the took the sheriffs executed Whether notice, door, personal to per- Conway I’m as service is it off the not one hundred personal (N.T., conclusive evidence that service get copies.” did cent. She both However, 110.) was made. on the based above January Hearing, p. And discussion, not, the affidavit is in sheriffs later, it, up “I went and I turned view, my conclusive because Price raised a her, gave so I and her and saw took it off contrary appearance when she filed her copies. with both of both She was served exceptions to tax sale. Ali. Conse- (N.T., 28, 2001 January Hearing, them.” to quently, required Purchasers show were 113.) p. He that he knows testified Bureau complied that the with statuto- he Price because has served her numerous attempted to do ry requirements, and so past. (Deposition in the of Deputy times testimony Deputy with the affidavit and of 8). Conway, p. court, Conway. again, The trial deter- Deputy Conway’s the fact Given mined that the sheriffs affidavit was con- conclusive, testimony I is believe that clusive as to whether service no- within role as solely it is the trial court’s pursuant Hollinger. tice was made to exactly what oc- fact finder determine However, based discussion on the above of fade, curred. Over time memories and in pertáining the law to sheriffs affidavits extensive cross examination about events is, in of a it my the context tax sale before can many that occurred months view, necessary for trial court to evalu- in Particularly, confusion. create this testimony Deputy Conway ate the of situation, type of where Price, make credibility determinations testified that he can serve four hundred reaching in its decision. season, during tax sale notices a tax sale affidavit, Conway had Deputy deputy it can be difficult for a sheriffs door, “would to the written not come left every particular detail of a ser- remember (Affidavit Upset as a refusal.” Sale This was one concerns under- vice. R6.) Service, Dur- Personal Trial Exhibit lying Hollinger rule because is un- deposition ing nearly his on June perfect realistic to demand recall one posting, Depu- 11 months after the date of activity that particular occurrence of an is Mrs. ty Conway stated that he saw performed by routinely, repetitively, kitchen, that he knew who she was her of his public officer the course official he had her numerous times because served duties. in the past, in the that her car was drive- therefore, is, responsibility of It and, way, that he knocked three times court, finder, as fact to determine trial he when she did not come affidavit, Deputy which Conway’s whether the notice and made the notations contemporaneously executed (Deposition Deputy affidavit. accurate, events, 8-9.) or which version his Conway, pp. He also stated he credibly subsequent testimony most sets when physically saw her turn around he and, therefore, knocked, whether but did whether what occurred not remember out (Deposi- him. properly eye contact with given. notice was she made 10.) During p. Conway, tion of Property B. Residential nearly January hearing posting, Deputy tax sale of argues Price also that the the months after date testified he remembered the should be set aside Residential had very been notice was im- well because because past to numerous times in the serve contend that there proper. again Purchasers *10 notices, testimony as well as other civil actions. In judice, the case sub he attached the in reach- credibility make determinations tape, front door with and was ing a decision on whether the notices at day. certain it was Price he saw properly effected. issue here were 76, (N.T., January Hearing, pp. Accordingly, I dissent. 81-82.) examination, During cross he stat- ed that he knocked on the door of the Judge Judge PELLEGRINI Residential and saw Price join dissenting LEADBETTER in this (N.T., through January the door. 2001 opinion. 92.) Hearing, p. did not recall whether He him eye

Price made contact with or not (N.T.,

when he knocked on the door. Jan- 92.)

uary Hearing, p. Ultimately, responded

Price never to his knock on the

door. After considerable cross examina-

tion, Conway Deputy finally stated that “I

don’t believe she saw me or heard me OF ERIE CITY Because, did, way.

either if she she would have came and answered the door.” [sic] 93.) (N.T., January Hearing, p. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION response, Because he received no Deputy OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL Conway placed personal service notice 293, Appellant. next to door notice and indicated on the affidavit that Price “would Pennsylvania. Commonwealth Court not come to the left as a refusal.” Argued Oct. 2003. (Affidavit Service, Upset Personal Sale R6.) Trial Exhibit He also indicated that Decided Nov.

service was made at 7:45 a.m. on Price, hand,

1999. Id. on the other testi-

fied that she was out of her home

time, he, therefore, and that could not have

seen her.

I believe that it is within the trial court’s

role as a fact finder exactly to determine Deputy

what occurred when at-

tempted to serve service notice It possible Price. that the trial court affidavit, Deputy Conway’s

will believe contemporaneous

which was

events, testimony or his which evidences a

refusal; possible trial is also

court will believe that the did not

effectuate these service. Absent I

findings, the Court is unable to believe

complete appellate meaningful review.

Consequently, I would vacate the order

and remand to the trial court to consider