IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Gustavo E. Cortes Moreno, :

 Appellant :

 :

 v. : No. 168 C.D. 2023

: Submitted: December 6, 2023

Schuylkill County Tax Claim Bureau :

 

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE WALLACE FILED: February 6, 2024

Gustavo E. Cortes Moreno (Moreno) appeals from the January 26, 2023 order 

of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County (trial court) denying and 

dismissing his objections and exceptions to the Schuylkill County Tax Claim 

Bureau’s (Bureau) upset tax sale of Moreno’s property. On appeal, Moreno argues 

the trial court erred in denying his objections and exceptions to the Bureau’s upset 

tax sale because the Bureau failed to: (1) comply with the Real Estate Tax Sale Law’s 
2

(RETSL)1 certified mailing requirements, (2) comply with the RETSL’s posting 

requirements, and (3) provide Moreno with Spanish language notices. Upon review, 

we reverse. 

I. Background

The essential facts are not contested in this matter. At all relevant times, 

Moreno was the owner of property located at 130 East Broad Street, Tamaqua, 

Pennsylvania, 18252 (Property). Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 78a. The Property 

contains a three-story structure. Id. at 61a. The first story of the structure is an 

abandoned store front, the second story is a vacant apartment, and the third story is 

an apartment in which Moreno periodically resides. Id. 

Moreno failed to pay real estate taxes on the Property beginning with the 2020 

tax year. R.R. at 78a. In early 2021, the Bureau sent Moreno an “Entry of Claim 

Notice” (Claim Notice) by certified mail2to the address the Bureau had on file for 

Moreno: P.O. Box 1244, Isabela, Puerto Rico, 00662-1244. See id. at 117a-20a. On 

April 21, 2021, someone signed for this certified mailing.3

On May 19, 2022, the Bureau sent a Notice of Public Tax Sale (Upset Sale

Notice) by certified mail, restricted delivery, to Moreno at the same address in Puerto 

Rico that it sent the Claim Notice. R.R. at 108a-09a. The Upset Sale Notice was for 

the 2020 tax year, and it advised Moreno the Bureau would sell the Property at an 

upset tax sale on September 26, 2022, if he did not pay the delinquent 2020 property 

taxes or enter into a payment agreement with the Bureau before the sale. Id. On

1 Act of July 7, 1947, P.L. 1368, as amended, 72 P.S. §§ 5860.101 - 5860.803.

2 Although the Bureau sent the Claim Notice by certified mail, it was not required to, nor did it, 

send the Claim Notice certified mail, restricted delivery. See R.R. at 117a.

3

 Despite the Bureau’s submission of a claim notice for Moreno’s delinquency for the 2021 tax 

year at the trial court’s hearing, a Bureau representative testified and explained the proof of service 

the Bureau submitted was for the Claim Notice, which addressed Moreno’s delinquency for the 

2020 tax year. See R.R. at 38a-40a, 117a, 119a.
3

July 23, 2022, the postal service returned the Upset Sale Notice to the Bureau with 

the following notation:

RETURN TO SENDER

NO MAIL RECEPTACLE

UNABLE TO FORWARD

RETURN TO SENDER

Id. at 109a. (capitalization in original). The Bureau published notice of the upset tax 

sale.4 See id. at 97a-106a. On July 22, 2022, the Bureau also posted a copy of the 

Upset Sale Notice on the Property’s first-floor store front. Id. at 113a-15a. Lastly, 

on August 10, 2022, the Bureau sent the Upset Sale Notice to Moreno at his Puerto 

Rico address by regular mail. Id. at 42a. 

On September 26, 2022, the Property was exposed to a public upset tax sale

and RSK Flipper, LLC purchased the Property for $33,433.00. R.R. at 80a. On 

November 7, 2022, Moreno filed objections and exceptions to the upset tax sale

(Objections). Id. at 2a, 6a-22a. The trial court held a hearing on Moreno’s 

Objections on December 27, 2022. See id. at 32a-76a.

At the trial court’s hearing, a Bureau representative testified and explained the 

documentary evidence and the steps the Bureau took to provide Moreno with notice 

of the upset tax sale. See R.R. at 34a-59a. In addition, the Bureau’s representative 

stated the copy of the Upset Sale Notice the Bureau sent to Moreno on August 10, 

2022, by regular mail, was not returned. Id. at 42a-43a. 

Moreno testified and explained the Puerto Rico post office box that the Bureau 

was utilizing to attempt to send him notices was his partner’s post office box, and 

that he and his partner were separated in early 2021. R.R. at 63a-64a. Moreno 

4

 Because Moreno has not alleged the Bureau’s publication of notice of the tax sale was 

defective, we need not set forth in detail the steps the Bureau undertook to publish notice of the 

upset tax sale. 
4

identified the signature on the certified mailing receipt for the Claim Notice as being 

his partner’s signature, and asserted he never received any notices of the upset tax 

sale from the Bureau. Id. Moreno also explained he was living in Puerto Rico from 

January to August of 2022 in a rental apartment, and he returned to the Property in 

August of 2022. Id. at 64a. Moreno asserted he did not see any notices on the 

Property upon his return from Puerto Rico. Id. at 64a-65a. 

By order dated January 26, 2023, the trial court denied and dismissed

Moreno’s Objections, confirming absolutely the upset tax sale. R.R. at 127a. In an 

accompanying opinion, the trial court determined “[t]he evidence presented by the 

Bureau . . . overwhelmingly demonstrates that it clearly complied with its Upset Sale 

Notice requirements including mailing, posting, and advertising requirements and 

belies [Moreno’s] claims.” Original Record5(O.R.), Item No. 6 at 8. The trial court 

found Moreno’s testimony to be “simply not believable.” Id. The trial court also 

opined:

There is no question that the Bureau mailed its notices to the correct 

address in Puerto Rico in accordance with [the] RETSL. The Bureau 

was not required to undertake additional notification efforts under [the]

RETSL because it was using [Moreno’s] correct address for mailing 

and had successfully provided notice to that address on April 21, 2021.

Id.

Moreno appealed the trial court’s order to this Court. On appeal, Moreno 

argues the trial court erred in denying and dismissing his Objections because: (1) the 

Bureau’s certified mailing did not comply with the RETSL’s notice requirements, 

(2) the Bureau’s physical posting of the Property did not comply with the RETSL’s 

5

 Moreno did not include the trial court’s opinion in his reproduced record. Accordingly, we cite 

to the trial court’s original record for this opinion. 
5

requirements, and (3) the Bureau did not provide the Upset Sale Notice to Moreno 

in Spanish.

II. Analysis

Our review in tax sale cases is limited to determining whether the trial court 

abused its discretion or erred at law. See Rice v. Compro Distrib., Inc., 901 A.2d 

570, 574 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). In considering whether a trial court abused its 

discretion, this Court looks to whether the trial court engaged in “a manifestly 

unreasonable exercise in judgment[] or [rendered] a final result that evidences 

partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.” Allegheny Cnty. v. Golf Resort, Inc., 974 A.2d 

1242, 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citation omitted). 

“A presumption of regularity attaches to tax sale cases. However, once 

exceptions are filed, the burden shifts to the tax claim bureau to show that proper 

notice was given.” Gutierrez v. Washington Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 260 A.3d 291, 

295 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (citation omitted). “A failure by a tax claim bureau to 

comply with all the statutory notice requirements ordinarily nullifies a sale.” Cruder 

v. Westmoreland Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 861 A.2d 411, 415 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).

Section 602 of the RETSL, 72 P.S. § 5860.602, requires a tax claim bureau to 

provide notice of an upset tax sale to the property owner by publication, posting, and 

mail. With respect to mail, Section 602(e)(1) of the RETSL requires a tax claim

bureau to provide notice of a tax sale to the owner “[a]t least thirty (30) days before 

the date of the sale, by United States certified mail, restricted delivery, return 

receipt requested, postage prepaid.” 72 P.S. § 5860.602(e)(1) (emphasis added). 

Section 602(e)(2) of the RETSL further requires:

If return receipt is not received from each owner pursuant to the 

provisions of clause (1), then, at least ten (10) days before the date of 

the sale, similar notice of the sale shall be given to each owner who 
6

failed to acknowledge the first notice by United States first class mail, 

proof of mailing, at his last known post office address by virtue of the 

knowledge and information possessed by the bureau, by the tax 

collector for the taxing district making the return and by the county 

office responsible for assessments and revisions of taxes. It shall be the 

duty of the bureau to determine the last post office address known to 

said collector and county assessment office. 

72 P.S. § 5860.602(e)(2). 

Section 607.1 of the RETSL imposes service requirements, which “shall be in 

addition to any other notice requirements imposed by this act.” 72 P.S. § 5860.607a, 

added by the Act of July 3, 1986, P.L. 81. Section 607.1(a) of the RETSL

specifically provides:

When any notification of a pending tax sale or a tax sale subject to 

court confirmation is required to be mailed to any owner . . . and 

such mailed notification is either returned without the required 

receipted personal signature of the addressee or under other 

circumstances raising a significant doubt as to the actual receipt of such 

notification by the named addressee or is not returned or acknowledged 

at all, then, before the tax sale can be conducted or confirmed, the 

bureau must exercise reasonable efforts to discover the 

whereabouts of such person or entity and notify him. The bureau’s 

efforts shall include, but not necessarily be restricted to, a search of 

current telephone directories for the county and of the dockets and 

indices of the county tax assessment offices, recorder of deeds office 

and prothonotary’s office, as well as contacts made to any apparent 

alternate address or telephone number which may have been written on 

or in the file pertinent to such property. When such reasonable efforts 

have been exhausted, regardless of whether or not the notification 

efforts have been successful, a notation shall be placed in the property 

file describing the efforts made and the results thereof, and the property 

may be rescheduled for sale or the sale may be confirmed as provided 

in this act.

72 P.S. § 5860.607a(a) (emphasis added).

With respect to posting, Section 602(e)(3) requires a tax sale bureau to post 

each property at least ten days before the tax sale. 72 P.S. § 5860.602(e)(3). While 
7

the RETSL “does not prescribe a particular method of posting,” “the method chosen 

must be reasonable and likely to inform the taxpayer of an intended property sale.” 

Consol. Return by McKean Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau of 9/12/2000 ex rel. Howard, 

820 A.2d 900, 903 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). We have determined a posting is reasonable 

if it is “conspicuous to the owner and public and securely attached.” Wiles v. 

Washington Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 972 A.2d 24, 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).

We begin by evaluating Moreno’s arguments the trial court erred in 

determining the Bureau complied with the RETSL’s certified mailing requirements. 

Moreno principally argues the Bureau failed to comply with Section 607.1 of the 

RETSL after its certified mailing of the Upset Sale Notice was returned without his 

signature. We agree.

Section 607.1(a) of the RETSL provides that when a tax claim bureau’s 

certified mailing is “returned without the required personal signature of the 

addressee . . . the bureau must exercise reasonable efforts to discover the 

whereabouts of such person or entity and notify him.” 72 P.S. § 5860.607a(a) 

(emphasis added). Section 607.1(a) of the RETSL continues to explain that “the 

Bureau’s efforts shall include” a variety of methods of locating the individual. Id. 

(emphasis added). Section 607.1(a)’s use of the mandatory terms “must” and “shall” 

reveal a tax claim bureau is obligated to undertake efforts to discover the whereabout 

of any “person or entity whose property interests are likely to be significantly 

affected by [the] tax sale” every time the tax claim bureau’s certified mailing is 

“returned without the required personal signature of the addressee.” Id.

Here, the Bureau did not provide testimony or documentary evidence to show 

it undertook any of the efforts required by Section 607.1 of the RETSL. See R.R. at 

34a-58a. Instead, the Bureau assumed it sent the Upset Sale Notice to a proper 
8

address because someone had signed for the Claim Notice over one year earlier, in 

April 2021. See id. at 50a-51a. Similarly, the trial court opined the Bureau “was 

using [Moreno’s] correct address for mailing and had successfully provided notice 

to that address on April 21, 2021.” O.R., Item No. 6 at 8. This was legal error.

The Claim Notice’s receipt, or lack thereof, by Moreno over one year before 

the Bureau issued the Upset Sale Notice, does not constitute successful service under 

Section 602 of the RETSL or absolve the Bureau from its obligations under Section

607.1 of the RETSL. First and foremost, the Claim Notice was not a “notice of sale” 

under Section 602 of the RETSL because it did not inform Moreno of the date of a 

“scheduled sale” of the Property for Moreno’s delinquent 2020 property taxes. See 

R.R. at 116a, 20a; 72 P.S. § 5860.602. Instead, the Claim Notice, which was issued 

well over one year before the tax sale, informed Moreno of the Bureau’s lien and 

that the Property could be subject to a tax sale if Moreno did not pay the delinquent 

taxes. See R.R. at 116a-20a. Second, the Claim Notice was sent by certified mail, 

but not restricted delivery. Restricted delivery, which is statutorily required when 

sending notice of a tax sale, see 72 P.S. § 5860.602(e)(1), limits delivery, in most 

instances, to only the addressee.6 Because the Claim Notice was not sent by 

restricted delivery, the Bureau, and the trial court, erred in assuming that the Bureau 

had the correct address for Moreno. In addition, the trial court erred in equating 

successful service of the Claim Notice, which was not required to be sent by certified 

mail, restricted delivery, to proper service under Section 602 of the RETSL, which 

requires restricted delivery.

Even if the Bureau was using the correct address for Moreno, when the Bureau 

received the Upset Sale Notice’s certified mailing card with no signature and an 

6

 https://faq.usps.com/s/article/What-is-Restricted-Delivery (last visited February 5, 2024). 
9

indication of “no mail receptacle,” Section 607.1 of the RETSL mandated the Bureau 

to undertake additional efforts to locate and serve Moreno. The Bureau wholly failed 

to introduce any evidence to show it undertook these efforts. Because the Bureau 

failed to carry its burden of proving it complied with the RETSL, the trial court 

should have granted Moreno’s Objections. 

III. Conclusion

The Bureau failed to carry its burden of proving it complied with Section 

607.1 of the RETSL after its certified mailing of the Upset Sale Notice was returned 

with the indication of “no mail receptacle, unable to forward.” Accordingly, the trial 

court erred in denying Moreno’s Objections to the upset tax sale, and we reverse the 

trial court’s order.7

______________________________

STACY WALLACE, Judge

7

 Because we reverse the trial court based on the Bureau’s failure to comply with the RETSL’s 

mailing requirements, we need not evaluate whether the Bureau failed to comply with the RETSL’s

posting requirements, or whether the Bureau was required to provide Moreno with a Spanish 

language notice. 
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Gustavo E. Cortes Moreno, :

 Appellant :

 :

 v. : No. 168 C.D. 2023

: 

Schuylkill County Tax Claim Bureau :

O R D E R 

 AND NOW, this 6th day of February 2024, the January 26, 2023 order of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County is REVERSED. 

______________________________

STACY WALLACE, Judge