IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Richard Beck, :

Appellant :

 :

v. : No. 205 C.D. 2017

 : Argued: November 13, 2017

Fayette County Tax Claim Bureau :

and Stacey McCarty :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: January 3, 2018

Richard Beck (Taxpayer) appeals from an Order of the Court of Common 

Pleas of Fayette County (trial court) that denied his Appeal and Request to Set Aside 

Tax Sale. At issue is whether the Fayette County Tax Claim Bureau (Bureau) 

complied with its statutory obligation under Section 607.1 of the Real Estate Tax

Sale Law1(Tax Sale Law) to undertake reasonable efforts to locate Taxpayer when 

a notice sent by certified mail was returned as unclaimed. Finding the Bureau did 

not undertake any effort to locate Taxpayer, we must reverse.

The facts of this case are not in dispute. On September 19, 2016, the Bureau 

sold Taxpayer’s property, located at 143 Grant Street, Ohiopyle, Fayette County, to 

 

1 Act of July 7, 1947, P.L. 1368, added by Section 30 of the Act of July 3, 1986, P.L. 351, 

72 P.S. § 5860.607a.
2

Stacey McCarty (Purchaser) at a tax upset sale for unpaid 2014 taxes. In April 2016, 

as required by Section 602 of the Tax Sale Law,2the Bureau sent a notice of tax sale 

by certified mail, return receipt requested to Taxpayer at P.O. Box 34, Ohiopyle, 

Pennsylvania. Taxpayer lives and works in Pittsburgh but admits the post office box 

in Ohiopyle is the address he established to receive notices for the property, which 

he uses as a vacation home. He maintains he did not receive the notice, however, as 

he had not been to the property since the summer of 2015. The notice was ultimately 

returned to the Bureau marked “Return to Sender, Unclaimed, Unable to Forward.”

Approximately one month after the property sold at tax sale, Taxpayer learned

about the sale from a neighbor of the property, which resulted in his filing of the 

Appeal and Request to Set Aside the Sale. Taxpayer served the prior solicitor of 

Fayette County with his appeal but did not serve the current county solicitor, the 

Bureau, or Purchaser.3 Unaware of the pending appeal, the Bureau issued a deed to 

Purchaser on December 6, 2016. Since receiving the deed, Purchaser has made 

approximately $13,500 in improvements to the property. 

A hearing on the petition was originally scheduled for December 20, 2016, 

but was continued to January 5, 2017, after the trial court learned the Bureau had not 

been served. Following the December 20, 2016 hearing, the trial court issued an 

Order voiding the tax deed and directing the prothonotary to serve a copy of the 

 

2

72 P.S. § 5860.602. Section 602(e)(1) provides that notice of the sale shall be given to 

the owner at least 30 days prior to the sale by United States certified mail, restricted delivery, 

return receipt requested. 72 P.S. § 5860.602(e)(1). Section 602 requires other forms of notice, 

including posting of the property and publication, which are not in dispute. 

3 Counsel for Taxpayer explained at the hearing before the trial court that it was his practice 

to serve only the county solicitor as a representative of the Bureau and that he was unaware that 

the county solicitor had changed three months earlier, as the former solicitor was still listed on the 

County’s website. (Hr’g Tr. at 5.) 
3

Order on Purchaser. At the January rescheduled hearing, counsel for Purchaser 

appeared and sought to intervene, which the trial court permitted.

At the hearing, Marjory Stefanini, first assistant at the Bureau, testified 

concerning the Bureau’s efforts to notify Taxpayer.4 She testified that the certified 

letter was sent to the post office box, and after it was returned as unclaimed, the 

Bureau made no additional efforts to locate Taxpayer. She testified that if a letter is 

returned, the Bureau does not attempt to send out a new letter unless it comes back 

with a forwarding address. She explained it is not practical to attempt to locate 

everyone whose letter comes back because the Bureau is dealing with more than 

5,000 people.

Taxpayer testified at the hearing that he has owned the property since 1992 

and opened the post office box in Ohiopyle specifically to receive notices for that 

property.5 He had the post office box for a number of years and continues to have 

it. Prior to the tax sale, he was last at the property sometime during the summer of 

2015, when he picked up the 2015 tax bill at the post office box, which was paid

with a check that showed his Pittsburgh address. He had no knowledge of the tax 

sale until he was notified by a neighbor of the property in October 2016. He 

immediately went to the property and left a note on the door advising that he was 

going to contest the sale. 

Purchaser also testified at the hearing.6 She testified she purchased the 

property at the upset sale because it was in a convenient location to her work and 

allowed her to spend more time with her family. She acknowledges finding a note 

left by Taxpayer on October 23, 2016, which said an appeal was pending and to 

 

4 Ms. Stefanini’s testimony can be found on pages 6-19 of the hearing transcript. 

5 Taxpayer’s testimony can be found on pages 20-33 of the hearing transcript. 

6 Purchaser’s testimony can be found on pages 34-43 of the hearing transcript. 
4

contact Taxpayer’s counsel, which she did. She also contacted the Bureau and was 

advised that Taxpayer had 30 days to appeal. She periodically checked with the 

Bureau to see if an appeal was filed and was told no appeal had been filed. Only 

after the appeal period ran did Purchaser make the improvements to the property. 

She learned of the appeal shortly after Christmas, when the Bureau’s counsel sent 

her a letter advising her an appeal had been filed. 

Following the hearing, the trial court issued an Opinion and Order dated 

January 18, 2017, denying the request to set aside the tax sale. The trial court found 

the Bureau complied with the requirements of the Tax Sale Law. 

Taxpayer filed a timely Notice of Appeal to this Court,7 arguing the trial court 

erred by failing to consider whether the Bureau satisfied its obligation under Section 

607.1 of the Tax Sale Law by making reasonable efforts to locate the owner when 

certified mail notices were returned without signature.8 Specifically, he argues that 

the Bureau undertook no effort to locate him once the letter was returned as 

unclaimed, despite having knowledge of his business address in Pittsburgh, which 

was available on the checks he sent to pay taxes in prior and subsequent years. 

 

7

In tax sale cases, our review “is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its 

discretion, clearly erred as a matter of law or rendered a decision with a lack of supporting 

evidence.” Rice v. Compro Distributing, Inc., 901 A.2d 570, 574 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).

8 Taxpayer lists three issues in his Statement of Questions Involved: (1) whether the trial 

court failed to consider the affirmative duty of the Bureau to locate a property owner when notice 

is returned unsigned or unclaimed; (2) whether the trial court erred in relying on the provision of 

the Tax Sale Law related to physical posting of the property; and (3) whether the Bureau presented 

any evidence of reasonable efforts to locate Taxpayer when the notice was returned unclaimed. 

The first and third issues can be consolidated into one – whether Section 607.1 of the Tax Sale 

Law was satisfied. As for the second issue, we do not find the trial court improperly relied upon 

the posting requirements instead of the service requirements. The trial court merely cited the law 

regarding posting. It is clear from the trial court’s January 18, 2017 Opinion and Order that the 

trial court’s analysis focused on the sufficiency of the mailed notice. 
5

The Bureau and Purchaser respond that the notice was sent to the address 

Taxpayer himself identified as the correct address and there was no need to go 

further. In addition, they argue that Taxpayer failed to serve the Bureau and 

Purchaser so his request to set aside the tax sale was never perfected. 

In its Rule 1925(a) opinion,9the trial court relied on its January 18, 2017 

Opinion to support its conclusion that the Bureau complied with the notice 

provisions of the Tax Sale Law. The trial court further noted that Taxpayer’s 

objections to the tax sale had not been perfected because he failed to serve the 

Bureau, current county solicitor, or Purchaser.10 Thus, the trial court stated it “would 

have dismissed [Taxpayer’s] exceptions to the tax sale on these grounds, regardless 

of whether the Bureau complied with the notice requirements.” (Trial Ct. Rule 

1925(a) Op. at 4-5.) 

Before we reach the issues raised by Taxpayer, we must first address whether 

Taxpayer’s challenge to the tax sale was perfected. Bureau and Purchaser argue that 

the trial court was correct in finding the challenge was not perfected because 

Taxpayer did not effectuate service on the parties, although Bureau cites no authority 

for its position, and Purchaser generally cites the Rules of Civil Procedure related to 

 

9 Rule 1925(a)(1) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, in pertinent 

part:

Except as otherwise prescribed by this rule, upon receipt of the notice of appeal, 

the judge who entered the order giving rise to the notice of appeal, if the reasons 

for the order do not already appear of record, shall forthwith file of record at least 

a brief opinion of the reasons for the order, or for the rulings or other errors 

complained of, or shall specify in writing the place in the record where such reasons 

may be found.

Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a)(1).

10 In a footnote in the original opinion, the trial court declined to address this issue given 

its disposition. (Jan. 18, 2017, Trial Ct. Op. at 4 n.1.) 
6

service for support. However, we have previously stated, “a trial court is not 

required to follow the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure in tax sale 

proceedings.” In re 2005 Sale of Real Estate by Clinton Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 

915 A.2d 719, 723 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Rather, Section 607(d) of the Tax Sale Law 

provides that objections or exceptions “shall be disposed of according to the practice 

of the court.” 72 P.S. § 5860.607(d). 

We begin with whether Purchaser should have been served with notice of the 

objections and conclude there was no requirement that Taxpayer had to serve 

Purchaser. Our case law establishes that a successful bidder at a tax sale, whose 

purchase has not been confirmed, is not a party to the action as of right; rather, the 

bidder must intervene in the action. In re 2005 Sale of Real Estate by Clinton Cnty.

Tax Claim Bureau, 915 A.2d at 723; In re Tax Sale Held September 10, 2003 by Tax 

Claim Bureau of the Cnty. of Lackawanna, 859 A.2d 15, 18 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). At 

the time Taxpayer filed his challenge to the tax sale, the purchase was not yet 

confirmed. Taxpayer filed his Appeal and Request to Set Aside Tax Sale in 

November 2016, whereas the Bureau issued a deed to Purchaser one month later. 

Therefore, Purchaser was not yet an indispensable party to the action. Fulton v. 

Bedford Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 942 A.2d 240, 242 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). 

Whether or not the Bureau should have been served is a more difficult issue. 

Here, it is not disputed that Taxpayer did not serve the Bureau; rather, Taxpayer 

served the former county solicitor with his Appeal and Request to Set Aside Tax 

Sale. At the hearing, counsel for Taxpayer explained the county’s website had not 

been updated to reflect the change in solicitor. No explanation was offered for not 

serving the Bureau directly, other than counsel’s representation that he had always 

just served the county solicitor. While we find it problematic that the Bureau whose 
7

actions are being directly challenged was not served with the objections, under the 

facts of this case and given the dearth of case law related to service of objections to 

tax sales, we cannot conclude this prevented Taxpayer’s appeal from being 

perfected. It bears emphasis that both the Bureau and Purchaser did appear and 

participate in the hearing. Thus, to the extent there was any error, it was cured when 

the parties appeared and participated in the hearing.11 

Furthermore, even if we were to conclude that it was error to not serve 

Purchaser or the Bureau directly, the remedy is not dismissal of the action. Rather, 

the matter would be remanded for a new hearing. See Serrino v. Cnty. of Luzerne 

Tax Claim Bureau (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2683 C.D. 2010, filed Dec. 28, 2011), slip op. 

at 10.

12

 Here, the Bureau and Purchaser already participated in the hearing; 

therefore, any error was harmless and did not result in prejudice. 

Turning to the merits of his appeal, Taxpayer argues that the Bureau did not 

comply with its statutory obligations. Section 602 of the Tax Sale Law provides 

that, in addition to posting and publication, notice of a proposed sale must also be 

provided to the owner by mail. 72 P.S. § 5860.602. The purpose behind the notice 

requirements is to ensure compliance with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution. Rice v. Compro Distrib., Inc., 901 

A.2d 570, 574-75 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). If any of the three notices are defective, the 

 

11 While this error has been cured, what has not yet been cured is the prejudice that 

Purchaser suffered when she, believing no appeal had been filed, invested a significant sum of 

money in renovating the rundown property. Had she known of the appeal, Purchaser testified she 

would not have taken the steps she did. The harm Purchaser suffered is a direct result of 

Taxpayer’s failure to, at a minimum, serve the Bureau. Therefore, Purchaser is entitled to be made 

whole. 

12 Serrino is an unreported panel decision, which is cited for its persuasive value in 

accordance with Section 414(a) of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code 

§ 69.414(a). 
8

tax sale is void. In re Upset Sale Tax Claim Bureau of McKean Cnty. on Sept. 10, 

2007 (Miller), 965 A.2d 1244, 1246-47 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). 

Section 607.1(a) imposes additional obligations on a bureau in the event the 

mailed notice is returned, such as here, as unclaimed. Specifically, it 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, mortgagee, 

lienholder or other person or entity whose property interests are likely 

to be significantly affected by such tax sale, 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). It is this provision that Taxpayer claims 

the Bureau violated. Based on our precedent, we are constrained to agree. 

The statute provides that the Bureau must exercise reasonable efforts to locate 

the owner once the mailed notice is returned unclaimed. The statute lists a number 

of minimum actions the Bureau must undertake, including, but not limited 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 
9

apparent alternate address or telephone number which may have been 

written on or in the file pertinent to such property.

Id. Here, the Bureau admits it did not take any of the above steps and, in fact, took 

no additional steps. Ms. Stefanini testified that when a letter is returned, unless it 

includes a forwarding address, no attempt is made to send out a new letter. (Hr’g 

Tr. at 14.) She reasoned it was not practical for the Bureau to search for every owner. 

On appeal, the Bureau and Purchaser argue the address was, in fact, correct, 

thereby excusing the Bureau from taking additional steps. However, we have 

previously stated in Grove v. Franklin County Tax Claim Bureau: 

[t]he General Assembly makes no provision for instances where, as 

here, the Bureau had already employed the correct address. Given 

the legislature’s clear statement and the mandatory nature of the 

statutory language, this Court is constrained to conclude that Section 

607.1 applies regardless of the correctness of the address to which 

the Bureau sent the notices.

705 A.2d 162, 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added); see 

also Maya v. Cnty. of Erie Tax Claim Bureau, 59 A.3d 50, 56-57 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) 

(citing Grove and finding bureau did not make a reasonable effort to locate owner 

despite fact that unclaimed notice was sent to correct address). 

Because the Bureau did not comply with its statutory obligation, we are 

constrained to reverse.

_____________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Richard Beck, :

Appellant :

 :

v. : No. 205 C.D. 2017

 :

Fayette County Tax Claim Bureau :

and Stacey McCarty :

O R D E R

NOW, January 3, 2018, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette 

County, dated January 18, 2017, is REVERSED. 

_____________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge