IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Francis and Mary Dupas, :

H, B and 48 acres surface, Bell :

Township, Clearfield County, :

Pennsylvania, known as :

Map No. D12-000-00004, Control No. :

10201255 :

: No. 56 C.D. 2015

Appeal of: Floyd Dupas : Submitted: September 17, 2015

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: October 7, 2015

Floyd Dupas (Dupas) appeals from the Clearfield County Common Pleas 

Court’s (trial court) December 17, 2014 order dismissing his Petition to Set Aside 

and/or Strike Tax Sale (Petition). The issues for this Court’s review are: (1) whether 

the trial court erred by holding that tax sale notice was given in accordance with the 

Real Estate Tax Sale Law (Tax Sale Law);

1

and (2) whether the trial court erred by 

holding that the Clearfield County Tax Claim Bureau (Bureau) exercised reasonable 

efforts to discover Dupas’ whereabouts. After review, we affirm.

Dupas’ parents, Francis B. and Mary Dupas (Owners), owned real 

property consisting of a house, barn and 48 acres located in Bell Township, Clearfield 

County, Pennsylvania (Property). At the time the Property was conveyed to the 

Owners in 1969, their recorded address was 52 Woodcliff Avenue, Little Falls, New 

Jersey. See Certified Record (C.R.), Notes of Testimony, November 26, 2014 (N.T.) 

 

1 Act of July 7, 1947, P.L. 1368, as amended, 72 P.S. §§ 5860.101 – 5860.803.
2

Ex. A. Mary Dupas died in 1974. Francis Dupas died in 2001. Despite that a New 

Jersey attorney was retained to administer their estates, there was no record in 

Clearfield County that the Owners were deceased.

2

 

The Property’s 2012 real estate tax bill was forwarded to the Bureau as 

unpaid.

3

 On March 7, 2013, the Bureau sent a pre-Notice of Return and Tax Claim to 

Owners in care of Dupas at Dupas’ 56 Woodcliff Avenue, Little Falls, New Jersey

address.

4

See C.R. N.T. Ex. D; see also Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 7a-8a. The 

pre-Notice was not returned by the United States Postal Service (USPS) as 

undelivered. On April 9, 2013, a Notice of Return and Claim was mailed by certified 

mail to the Owners in care of Dupas at the 56 Woodcliff Avenue, Little Falls, New 

Jersey address, which stated that if the taxes were not paid by December 31, 2013 and 

no exceptions are filed, the claim would become absolute and the Property would be 

exposed for tax sale. See C.R. N.T. Ex. E; see also R.R. at 10a. The Notice of 

Return and Claim was returned unsigned. 

On May 9, 2014, a Notice of Public Tax Sale, stating that the Property 

was about to be sold without consent was sent certified mail, restricted delivery, to 

Dupas on the Owners’ behalf at the 56 Woodcliff Avenue, Little Falls, New Jersey 

address. See C.R. N.T. Ex. F; see also R.R. at 11a. The certified mailing card 

reflected that “A.D. Keay” accepted the notice as agent for “F. Dupas” on May 12, 

2014. Id. On August 5, 2014, the Bureau advertised the Property’s impending sale in 

“The Progress” and “The Courier-Express.” See C.R. N.T. Exs. I, J; see also R.R. at 

13a. The Bureau also advertised the Property’s sale in the Clearfield County Legal 

Journal on August 8, 2014. See C.R. N.T. Ex. K; see also R.R. at 13a. 

 

2 Owners had four children. Only Dupas and his brother Frank Dupas are currently living.

3

The upset price also included tax delinquencies for the 2013 tax year. See Reproduced 

Record (R.R.) at 4a-5a.

4 Dupas has resided at 56 Woodcliff Avenue, Little Falls, New Jersey since 1972.
3

On August 20, 2014, the Bureau sent by first class mail to Dupas for the 

Owners at the 56 Woodcliff Avenue, Little Falls, New Jersey address a 10-Day 

Notice of Public Tax Sale reflecting that the tax sale would take place on September 

12, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. See C.R. N.T. Ex. H; see also R.R. at 12a-13a. The 10-Day 

Notice was not returned by the USPS as undelivered. See R.R. at 13a. On August 

28, 2014, the Property was posted with the Notice of Tax Sale, stating that the last 

day to make full payment to halt the sale was September 11, 2014. See C.R. N.T. Ex. 

G; see also R.R. at 11a-12a. On September 12, 2014, the Property was sold at tax 

sale to Heather Kunselman (Kunselman). On October 23, 2014, Dupas timely filed 

the Petition. The trial court held a hearing on November 26, 2014. On December 17, 

2014, the trial court dismissed the Petition and confirmed the Property’s sale to 

Kunselman. Dupas appealed to this Court.5 

Dupas first argues that the trial erred by holding that notice of the sale 

was given in accordance with the Tax Sale Law. Specifically, he contends that 

Property’s reputed owner never received notice that the tax sale was to occur. We 

disagree. 

“Generally, tax sales are presumed valid.” Barylak v. Montgomery Cnty.

Tax Claim Bureau, 74 A.3d 414, 416 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). This Court has held that 

“the only acceptable basis for setting aside a tax sale on exceptions is a finding by a 

court that the proceedings of the [B]ureau involved in the sale were irregular or 

illegal.” In re Sale of Real Estate by Venango County Tax Claim Bureau, 449 A.2d 

 

5

“Our scope of review in tax sale cases is limited to determining whether a trial court 

abused its discretion, rendered a decision unsupported by the evidence, or erred as a matter of law.” 

Estate of Marra v. Tax Claim Bureau of Lackawanna Cnty., 95 A.3d 951, 954 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2014).

The trial court issued its opinion on February 24, 2015.
4

879, 881 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982). Section 602 of the Tax Sale Law provides, in pertinent 

part:

(a) At least thirty (30) days prior to any scheduled sale the 

[B]ureau shall give notice thereof, not less than once in two 

(2) newspapers of general circulation in the county, if so 

many are published therein, and once in the legal journal, 

if any, designated by the court for the publication of legal 

notices. Such notice shall set forth (1) the purposes of such 

sale, (2) the time of such sale, (3) the place of such sale, (4) 

the terms of the sale including the approximate upset price, 

(5) the descriptions of the properties to be sold as stated in 

the claims entered and the name of the owner.

(b) Where the owner is unknown and has been unknown for 

a period of not less than five years, the name of the owner 

need not be included in such description.

(c) The description may be given intelligible abbreviations.

(d) Such published notice shall be addressed to the ‘owners 

of properties described in this notice and to all persons 

having liens, judgments or municipal or other claims 

against such properties.’

(e) In addition to such publications, similar notice of the 

sale shall also be given by the [B]ureau as follows:

(1) At least thirty (30) days before the date of the 

sale, by United States certified mail, restricted 

delivery, return receipt requested, postage 

prepaid, to each owner as defined by [the Tax Sale 

Law].

(2) 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 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 

[B]ureau, by the tax collector for the taxing district 

making the return and by the county office 

responsible for assessments and revisions of taxes. 
5

It shall be the duty of the [B]ureau to determine the 

last post office address known to said collector and 

county assessment office.

(3) Each property scheduled for sale shall be posted

at least ten (10) days prior to the sale.

72 P.S. § 5860.602 (emphasis added). “Owner” is defined in Section 102 of the Tax 

Sale Law as 

the person in whose name the property is last registered, 

if registered according to law, or, if not registered 

according to law, the person whose name last appears as 

an owner of record on any deed or instrument of 

conveyance recorded in the county office designated for 

recording and in all other cases means any person in 

open, peaceable and notorious possession of the property, 

as apparent owner or owners thereof, or the reputed owner 

or owners thereof, in the neighborhood of such property[.]

72 P.S. § 5860.102 (emphasis added).

The law ‘is well settled in Pennsylvania that a valid tax sale 

requires strict compliance with all three of the notice 

provisions of Section 602’ of the [Tax Sale Law] and that, if 

any of the notices are ‘defective, the sale is void.’ In re 

Upset Price Tax Sale of September 25, 1989, . . . 615 A.2d

870, 872 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1992). Strict compliance is 

necessary ‘to guard against the deprivation of property 

without due process of law.’ In re Upset Price Tax Sale of 

September 10, 1990 (Sortino), . . . 606 A.2d 1255, 1258 

([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1992). 

Our Supreme Court has explained that a presumption of the 

regularity of an official act . . . ‘exists until the contrary 

appears.’ Hughes v. Chaplin, . . . 132 A.2d 200, 202 ([Pa.] 

1957).

In re: Upset Sale Tax Claim Bureau McKean Cnty., 965 A.2d 1244, 1246-47 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2009) (footnote omitted). “Where a property owner avers defective notice, 

the burden of proving strict compliance with the [Tax Sale Law’s] notice provisions 

rests with the taxing authority. If any of the required notices is defective, the tax sale 
6

is void and must be set aside.”

6

 Estate of Marra v. Tax Claim Bureau of Lackawanna 

Cnty., 95 A.3d 951, 956 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (citations omitted). Thus, in order for a 

tax sale to be valid, the registered owner or other person named in county records or 

in open possession or reputed owner must be notified by publication at least 30 days 

before the sale, by certified mail and by posting 10 days before the sale. See Popple 

v. Luzerne Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 960 A.2d 517 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008); In re Tax 

Sale of 28.8525 Acres in Middlecreek Twp. Tax Sale No. 12434, 688 A.2d 1239 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1997).

At the hearing, Bureau Director Jennifer Wooster (Wooster) testified 

that the Bureau had no record of either Owner’s death, nor did it locate in its research 

any deed or other record reflecting any transfer of the Property or interest therein to 

Dupas. R.R. at 6a-7a. She further stated that although the Owners’ tax assessment 

card reflects a P.O. Box 123, Mahaffey, Pennsylvania address, the Owners’ record 

address was 56 Woodcliff Avenue, Little Falls, New Jersey. See C.R. N.T. Ex. B; see 

also R.R. at 7a-8a. Regarding why in April 2013 the Bureau’s notices were 

addressed to Dupas on the Owners’ behalf, Wooster speculated: “There must have 

been some verification from either the [USPS] or some information that came to us 

through [a] tax claim.” R.R. at 8a-9a. She acknowledged that her research failed to 

disclose any reason why Dupas would be a claimant or party in interest. See R.R. at 

9a. 

Dupas testified at the hearing that the Owners lived between Mahaffey, 

Pennsylvania and Little Falls, New Jersey, but mostly in Little Falls, which is where 

 

6 Based upon the evidence presented in this case and the Tax Sale Law’s definition of 

“owner” cited above, Dupas may have lacked standing to challenge the tax sale. 72 P.S. § 

5860.102. However, this Court has found non-owner standing where the challenging party had 

“substantial, direct and immediate interest” to challenge a tax sale. Husak v. Fayette Cnty. Tax 

Claim Bureau, 61 A.3d 302, 309 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). Notwithstanding, since the Bureau did not 

raise this issue before the trial court, it has been waived. First Horizon Home Loan Corp. v. Adams 

Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 847 A.2d 774 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).
7

they died. R.R. at 16a. He explained that the Owners lived next door to him at 52

Woodcliff Avenue, Little Falls, New Jersey. He assumed that the estate attorney

alerted Clearfield County or the Bureau of the Owners’ deaths. Dupas explained that 

there was not a tax delinquency on the Property before 2012 because on a prior

occasion when he received a Property tax sale notice, he collected money from his 

siblings and paid the taxes. He admitted that he knew that the 2012 taxes had to be 

paid, but he “was waiting for the final notice.” R.R. at 17a-18a. Dupas claimed that

he “never got any of th[e] notices” the Bureau sent to him at 56 Woodcliff Avenue, 

Little Falls, New Jersey regarding the 2012 tax delinquency or sale.7 R.R. at 18a; see 

also R.R. at 18a-19a. He could not identify who A.D. Keay is, but later surmised that 

it may have been the mail carrier.8 See R.R. at 20a.

Dupas disclosed that he did not know whether his mother died with or 

without a will, but recalled that his father died with a will under which he “believe[d 

the Property] went to all four siblings.” R.R. at 19a. He acknowledged that since the 

Owners’ Mahaffey, Pennsylvania address is on their tax assessment card, and the tax 

sale notices were sent to his attention at his 56 Woodcliff Avenue, Little Falls, New 

Jersey address, “they must have gotten my name. I probably had -- because it’s my 

address. And I had gotten it after my brother had passed, I had gotten the notices.” 

R.R. at 21a-22a.

The Owners’ nephew Daniel Dupas, who lives in Hastings, 

Pennsylvania, stated that he owns property near the Owners’ Property and visits it 

 

7 Dupas declared that, to the best of his knowledge, none of his siblings received the subject 

tax sale notices.

8 Dupas testified that he lives with Christina, Marcy and Aubrey, and has never appointed 

anyone to accept mail as his agent. See R.R. at 20a-21a. In Dupas’ brief, he refers to the three 

individuals as having his same last name. Dupas Br. at 4. 
8

quite a bit. His testimony regarding whether posting was on the Property was as 

follows:

Q . . . This is the posting of the [Property] that was 

supposedly posted on August 28th. Do you remember 

seeing this posting?

A No.

Q Had you been to the [P]roperty during this time?

A Yes.

Q What was the occasion that you were near the [P]roperty?

A It was Labor Day weekend, and I was doing some work 

on my property and we were back and forth through the 

area, through the farm right there. The driveway comes 

right down through there.

Q Okay. And you do not remember seeing this posting?

A No.

R.R. at 24a-25a. However, Sara Sorbera (Sorbera) testified that she was engaged by 

Clearfield County to post the Property and did so on August 28, 2014, as reflected in 

her affidavit and photograph admitted into evidence without objection. See R.R. at 

25a-27a, 28a; see also C.R. N.T. Ex. G.

“As the finder of fact, the trial court has exclusive authority to weigh the 

evidence, make credibility determinations and draw reasonable inferences from the 

evidence presented.” Barylak, 74 A.3d at 417. The trial court in this case stated:

This case presents a unique set of facts. Both owners under 

[the Tax Sale Law] were deceased at the time of the sale. 

No administration of this [P]roperty was done in Clearfield 

County and as a result, there is no subsequent record owner 

of the [P]roperty entitled to notice under [the Tax Sale 

Law]. It is as likely as not that [] Dupas is a beneficiary 

under his Father’s Will or intestate heir entitled to claim a 

distributive share in the [P]roperty. However, there is no

evidence of record in Clearfield County nor was any 
9

testimony or evidence sufficiently established at [the] 

hearing to confirm that the [P]roperty has been administered 

and has cleared the claims of creditors. As such, there is no 

basis for this Court to conclude that [] Dupas is an ‘owner’

under [the Tax Sale Law] entitled to notice.

Tax collection cannot be frustrated by the failure of people 

to properly administer estates. This is why [the Tax Sale 

Law] permits sales to be confirmed if notice was provided 

to the last record owners, whether or not there is evidence 

that notice was received. 

While the Bureau apparently had some reason to know that 

[] Dupas claimed an interest in the [P]roperty and had paid 

prior delinquent taxes, there is nothing of record in

Clearfield County confirming that he is an owner. As such, 

the contention in the Petition ‘. . . (t)hat the current owners 

of the [P]roperty did not receive proper notice of the 

proposed sale’ is accurate and unavailing. The Court also 

notes that the testimony of [] Dupas that he did not know 

any A.D. Keay was not considered by this Court to be 

credible.

Trial Ct. Op. at 6-7. Accordingly, the trial court concluded:

At the time of the tax sale, there was no new record owner 

of the [P]roperty. The Bureau acknowledges that it must 

use ordinary common sense business practices in

ascertaining owners and proper addresses to which notices 

are required by [the Tax Sale Law] to be sent. Kleinberger 

v[]. Tax Claim Bureau of Lehigh C[nty.], 438 A.2d 1045 

(Pa.[]Cmwlth. 1982). However, the issue here is 

ownership, not location. There is no current owner of 

record because no deed, will or decree from the estate of 

Francis Dupas has ever been recorded in Clearfield County. 

While the Bureau must exhaust reasonable efforts to locate 

owners, it cannot find what doesn’t exist, and where estates 

are not administered, there are numerous potential owners. 

Here, [Dupas] was sent notice at his residence and [the Tax 

Sale Law] provides that absence of proof that the notice was 

received does not defeat a sale.

Accordingly, the [Bureau] did give the required prior 

written notice and did exercise reasonable efforts under the 

circumstances of this case to determine the owners of the 

[P]roperty, their whereabouts and to provide notice. 
10

[Dupas’] rights under the Tax Sale Law and of due process 

were not violated. The Court correctly dismissed the

Petition[.] 

Trial Ct. Op. at 7. We find no error in the trial court’s conclusions. Based upon our 

review of the record evidence, the Bureau satisfied all three tax sale notice 

requirements. 

With regard to the Bureau’s mailed notice, it is undisputed that the 

Bureau records reflected that Dupas’ parents were the Property’s record owners, that 

the Bureau was unaware that the Owners were deceased, and that there was no public 

record that Dupas or anyone else had an interest in the Property.

9

 Rather, at some 

point, perhaps when Dupas paid the Property’s previously-delinquent taxes, the 

Bureau was notified that the Owners were to be reached in care of Dupas at his Little 

Falls, New Jersey address.

The [Tax Sale Law] does not require the Bureau to notify 

anyone not of record with an interest in property subject to 

a tax sale. Although the notice provisions of the [Tax Sale

Law] must be strictly construed in order to guard against 

the deprivation of property without due process of law, the 

Bureau’s duty to search for owners’ correct names and 

addresses in a tax sale is limited to owners of record as 

defined by the [Tax Sale Law]. The Bureau only has the 

burden of proving that it complied with all statutory notice 

provisions and applied common sense business practices in 

ascertaining proper addresses.

Husak v. Fayette Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 61 A.3d 302, 309 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) 

(citation omitted; bold emphasis added) (quoting Farrow v. Tax Claim Bureau of 

 

9 Notably, Dupas referred to himself as “an unrecorded property owner” in his brief. Dupas 

Br. at 8. Moreover, since Dupas could not state what information was given to the Bureau, when or 

by whom, there is no support in the record for Dupas’ claim that since the Bureau knew to send

Owner notices to his New Jersey residence rather than his parents’ address, “[the Bureau] was 

clearly on notice that [Dupas] had an interest in the [P]roperty.” Dupas Br. at 10; see also R.R. at 

21a-22a. Finally, Dupas presented no evidence to establish any claim he may have had to the 

Property. 
11

Monroe Cnty., 704 A.2d 1137, 1142 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997)). Moreover, citing Section 

602(h) of the Tax Sale Law,10 this Court has held that as long as the Bureau otherwise 

complied with the mailed notice requirements, a tax sale cannot be defeated by the 

fact that the owner did not actually receive the notice. Steinbacher v. 

Northumberland Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 996 A.2d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010); In re 

Upset Tax Sale Held 11/10/97, 784 A.2d 834 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001); Kleinberger.

Here, the March 7, 2013 pre-Notice of Return and Tax Claim sent to 

Owners in care of Dupas at Dupas’ address was not returned as undelivered. See

C.R. N.T. Ex. D; see also R.R. at 7a-8a. The May 9, 2014 Notice of Public Tax Sale

was likewise sent to Owners in care of Dupas at Dupas’ address by certified mail, 

restricted delivery, and was accepted by A.D. Keay on behalf of “F. Dupas” behalf. 

See C.R. N.T. Ex. F; see also R.R. at 11a. Dupas admits that the “Bureau sent out the 

notice in a timely fashion and to the proper address.” Dupas Br. at 14. Thus, the 

Bureau complied with the 30-day certified mailing requirement in Section 602(e)(1) 

of the Tax Sale Law. The trial court did not find credible Dupas’ claim that he did 

not know A.D. Keay. Although only required if a return receipt was not received, the 

Bureau, perhaps out of an abundance of caution, nevertheless also sent the August 20, 

2014 10-Day Notice of Public Tax Sale by first class mail to Owners in care of Dupas 

at Dupas’ address and it was not returned as undelivered. See C.R. N.T. Ex. H; see 

also R.R. at 12a-13a. Therefore, the Bureau also complied with Section 602(e)(2) of 

the Tax Sale Law. Because substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion 

that the Bureau properly mailed the tax sale notices, even if we were to accept as true 

 

10 Section 602(h) of the Tax Sale Law states in relevant part: “No sale shall be defeated and 

no title to property sold shall be invalidated because of proof that mail notice as herein required was 

not received by the owner, provided such notice was given as prescribed by this section.” 72 P.S. § 

5860.602(h). 
12

Dupas’ claim that he did not receive them, the subject tax sale cannot be defeated on 

that basis.11 Steinbacher; In re Upset Tax Sale Held 11/10/97; Kleinberger.

 Regarding the Bureau’s published notice, Dupas did not dispute that the 

Bureau properly complied with the requirement that notice is published in at least two 

newspapers of general circulation on August 5, 2014 and one legal journal covering 

Clearfield County on August 8, 2014, which was at least thirty days before the tax 

sale, in accordance with Section 602(a) of the Tax Sale Law. 

Relative to the Bureau’s posted notice, “an affidavit of posting is 

competent evidence that the premises were properly posted. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6104(a)

[(relating to evidence of official government action)].” Barylak, 74 A.3d at 416. 

Here, Sorbera’s affidavit, together with her testimony and a photograph of the posting 

constituted substantial evidence that the Property was properly posted. Daniel 

Dupas’ failure to see the notice while traveling back and forth “through the area” the 

following weekend did not sufficiently rebut that Sorbera properly posted the 

Property on August 28, 2014, which was more than 10 days before the September 12, 

2014 tax sale in compliance with Section 602(e)(3) of the Tax Sale Law. R.R. at 25a.

Accordingly, the trial did not err by holding that notice of the Property’s tax sale was 

given in accordance with the Tax Sale Law. 

 Dupas also argues that the trial court erred by holding that the Bureau

exercised reasonable efforts to discover Dupas’ whereabouts. We disagree. Section 

607.1 of the Tax Sale Law provides:

(a) When any notification of a pending tax sale . . . is 

required to be mailed to any owner . . . 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 

 

11 Dupas’ testimony that he was aware that the Property’s 2012 taxes were owed, but that he 

was waiting for “the final notice” before paying them, makes questionable his claim that he did not 

receive any of the mailed notices. R.R. at 18a-19a (emphasis added). 
13

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 [B]ureau must 

exercise reasonable efforts to discover the whereabouts 

of such person or entity and notify him. The [B]ureau’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 [the Tax Sale Law].

(b) The notification efforts required by subsection (a) shall 

be in addition to any other notice requirements imposed by 

[the Tax Sale Law].

72 P.S. § 5860.607a (emphasis added).

12

Notwithstanding Dupas’ speculation that the Bureau was on notice of his 

interest, the record evidence and his admission on appeal support the trial court’s 

conclusion that any interest he claims to have had in the Property was unrecorded and 

not subject to the Bureau’s county (and, conceivably, state) record search. The only 

alternate information was that the Owners could be reached at Dupas’ address. 

Despite Dupas’ claim that he did not receive the tax sale notices, he does not dispute 

that the notices were timely sent to Dupas’ long-time address. Even if we were to 

conclude that A.D. Keay’s signature “rais[ed] a significant doubt as to [Dupas’ or the 

Owners’] actual receipt of such notification,” Dupas does not proffer and we cannot 

conceive of what other efforts the Bureau would have to undertake in order to 

 

12 Added by Section 30 of the Act of July 3, 1986, P.L. 351.
14

discover Dupas’ whereabouts. 72 P.S. § 5860.607a(a). Accordingly, the trial court

did not err by holding that the Bureau exercised reasonable efforts to discover Dupas’ 

whereabouts.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s order.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Francis and Mary Dupas, :

H, B and 48 acres surface, Bell :

Township, Clearfield County, :

Pennsylvania, known as :

Map No. D12-000-00004, Control No. :

10201255 :

: No. 56 C.D. 2015

Appeal of: Floyd Dupas :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2015, the Clearfield County 

Common Pleas Court’s December 17, 2014 order dismissing Floyd Dupas’ Petition to 

Set Aside and/or Strike Tax Sale and confirming the tax sale to Heather Kunselman is 

affirmed. 

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge