In re Tax Claim Bureau-Judicial Sale

1

In Re: Petition of Tax Claim Bureau-Judicial Sale Appeal of: Seneca Leandro View, LLC

No. 821 C.D. 2021

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

April 20, 2023

OPINION NOT REPORTED

Submitted: June 24, 2022

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge, HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge, HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, JUDGE

Seneca Leandro View, LLC (Purchaser) appeals the order of the Greene County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) granting reconsideration and granting the petition of Eron Wiles (Owner) to set aside the tax sale of Tax Parcel 2-04-126 located at 404 East South Street, Carmichaels, PA (Property). We affirm.

I.

On September 16, 2020, the Greene County (County) Tax Claim Bureau (Bureau) conducted an annual upset sale of properties with delinquent taxes, including the Property at issue herein. Purchaser was the successful bidder at the sale.

On October 7, 2020, Owner filed an Exception and Objection to the sale in the trial court.^[1] See Reproduced Record (RR) at 9a-13a. On November 12, 2020 Owner filed an Amended Exception and Objection in which she alleged, inter alia, that she does not reside at the Property, and had previously notified the Bureau of her new address at 324 South Pine Street, Carmichaels, PA. Id. at 16a.^[2] She asserted that despite this notification, the Bureau continued to mail information to the Property address and, unbeknownst to her, that the Property was offered for sale for unpaid taxes for the 2019 tax year. Id.

Owner claimed that she did not receive the notice of the sale as required by Section 602(e) of the Law.^[3] See RR at 16a. Owner also alleged that she "made payments in excess of $1,800.00 [in 2020] on the delinquent taxes for the home," and that "[t]he [trial] court should set aside the sale as it was performed illegally and in violation of [her] rights as set forth by [Section 601 of the Law,^[4]et seq.[,] and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution." Id. at 17a.

On December 1, 2020, a hearing was scheduled to consider Owner's Amended Exception and Objection. RR at 27a. At the hearing, Owner "indicate[d] that [she is] able to pay the taxes in full . . . ." Id. However, all of the parties agreed that Purchaser was not notified of the hearing. Id. As a result, the trial court directed the Bureau to notify Purchaser of Owner's Amended Exception and Objection, and issued a Rule to Show Cause upon Purchaser "why the sale should not be voided upon [Owner's] payment of all costs, fees and taxes . . . ." Id. at 27a-28a.

On December 31, 2020, Purchaser filed a Petition to Intervene in the proceedings, and an Answer to the Amended Exception and Objection filed by Owner. RR at 30a-41a, 42a-48a. Accordingly, on January 8, 2021, the trial court issued a Consent Order noting Purchaser's intervention, cancelling the Rule, and scheduling a hearing for February 2, 2021. Id. at 50.

At the February 2, 2021 hearing, Sue Ellen Kingan, the County's Director of Tax Claim, testified, in relevant part, that the Property was exposed for sale on September 16, 2020, for the delinquent taxes owed for the 2018 and 2019 tax years. RR at 160a. She stated that Purchaser paid the upset sale price of $4,263.28. Id. at 160a, 169a.

Kingan outlined the notice process implemented by the Bureau to conform to the Law's notice, publication, and posting requirements. RR at 160a-62a, 163a-70a. She testified that prior to the Property's posting, in January of 2020, Owner called her on the telephone and indicated that the Bureau's initial notice of delinquent taxes had not been received. Id. at 175a-76a. Nevertheless, after the telephone call, Owner made payments on the delinquent taxes, ultimately paying the entire delinquent amount. Id. at 178a-79a, 215a.

Kingan identified Owner's Exhibit C, a copy of the Bureau's Real Estate Tax Lien Certificate (Certificate), listing the taxes owed on the Property and the payments that Owner made. RR at 180a, 274a-76a. Kingan acknowledged that the Certificate had refreshed her recollection regarding Owner's partial payment of the delinquent taxes prior to the upset sale. Id. at 180a.

The Certificate shows that at the time of the January 2020 telephone call, Owner owed $1,346.87 for the 2017 tax year; $1,322.78 for the 2018 tax year; and $1,102.53 for the 2019 tax year. RR at 275a-76a. The Certificate also shows that to satisfy the taxes for the 2017 tax year, Owner made a payment of $250.00 on January 29, 2020; a payment of $350.00 on February 4, 2020; a payment of $238.93 on March 12, 2020; and a payment of $507.94 on September 1, 2020. Id. at 275a. Because the total delinquent taxes for the 2017 tax year were paid, an additional $492.06 that Owner paid on September 1, 2020, was applied to the delinquent taxes due for the 2018 tax year. Id. at 184a, 275a.

Owner also testified at the trial court's February 2, 2021 hearing, stating that she spoke with Kingan in January 2020, and notified Kingan that she had moved down the road from the Property. RR at 210a. She testified that her tenant for the Property signed the certified letter as required by the Law, but her tenant did not give the letter to her. Id. at 216a. She stated that she called Kingan after she became aware that her property had been posted for sale in September 2019. Id.

Owner testified that she spoke to Kingan about making payments on the delinquent taxes, but she did not enter into an installment agreement with the Bureau to pay the delinquent taxes. RR at 216a-17a. She did not know that an installment agreement with the Bureau was an option, even though Kingan told her that it would be fine to make payments on the total due. Id. at 217a, 222a. She stated that she made another payment after she saw that the Property was posted in August 2020, and she removed the placard. Id. at 219a-21a, 225a.

Specifically, Owner testified as follows regarding the agreement that she struck with Kingan in January 2020, to make payments on the delinquent taxes:

Q: What was that agreement?

A: Well, I advised Ms. Kingan of my -- my late notification of the information. I had received basically a picture message from a friend of mine and I explained to her that I wanted to get the balance satisfied as soon as I could and that I would be making payments. She said that would be fine. There was no indication of a particular amount or particular payment date. There was nothing --she didn't advise me that I had to make a certain balance made by a certain date or a certain monthly payment amount just that it needed to be satisfied.

* * *

Q: Right but you saw the posting which - which specifically told you that if you didn't pay everything off in full it was going to be sold in September, correct?

A: It also stated that payments --

Q: Answer my question, please.

A: Yes. And it also stated that payments could be made.

Q: Right.

A: And I have been making payments.

Q: Right but you had -- you didn't -- you did not make those payments in full prior to the date of that sale, correct?

A: Correct.

RR at 226a, 227a-28a.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found as fact that: (1) the certified mail delivery requirement under Section 602(e)(1) of the Law was not perfected on Owner; (2) the Bureau did not satisfy its duty under Section 607(a) of making additional notification efforts; and (3) based on Owner's testimony, she had actual notice of the September 16, 2020 upset sale. RR at 232a-33a. Accordingly, on February 4, 2021, the trial court entered an order incorporating these factual findings, and directing the parties to file a memorandum of law or brief in support of their respective positions regarding the validity of the Property's tax sale. See id. at 51a-52a. The trial court stated: "Thereafter, the [c]ourt will make a determination based [on] the law and apply [it] to the facts as we have determined them to be to this date." Id. at 52a.

On February 16, 2021, Purchaser filed a brief outlining the Law's notice requirements and how they had been satisfied by the Bureau in this case. See RR at 62a-64a. Purchaser argued, inter alia, that "[a]s a non-occupant of the Property, [Owner] was afforded more procedural protection than the law requires." Id. at 64a. Moreover, Purchaser claimed,

assuming, arguendo, that there were any defects in the Bureau's satisfaction of the notice requirements, where a property is not owner-occupied and the owner has actual notice of the tax sale, as [Owner] did, "a tax claim bureau's failure to satisfy the statutory notice requirements of [S]ection 602 of the Law, 72 P.S. §5860.602, does not invalidate a tax sale where the property owner's actual notice obviated due process concerns."

Id. at 64a-65a (citation omitted). On February 22, 2021, the Bureau filed Purchaser's brief as its own. See id. at 68a-77a.

That same day, Owner filed a Memorandum in support of the Amended Exception and Objection. See RR at 79a-91a. Owner argued that the Bureau did not comply with all of the Law's notice requirements because the Bureau failed to: (1) notify her of her right to enter into a written agreement pursuant to Section 603; (2) establish that the language of its notices was in strict compliance with the Law's requirements; and (3) establish that its publication in the County Legal Journal was done within 30 days before the sale. Id. at 81a.

With respect to her first claim, Owner noted that in January 2020 she owed a total of $3,403.58 for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 tax years. RR at 81a-82a. She explained that she paid $1,800.00 in delinquent taxes, or roughly 53% of the taxes owed, in the 2020 calendar year alone. Id. She asserted that "[a]t no point was she offered or notified of the fact that she had qualified for...