IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Amanda Johnson, :

 Appellant : No. 266 C.D. 2022

 : Submitted: July 14, 2023

v. : 

: 

Greene County Tax Claim Bureau :

and Heather Gilbert :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE WALLACE FILED: January 16, 2024

Amanda Johnson (Objector) appeals from the March 10, 2022 order of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Greene County (trial court) denying her objections to the 

Greene County Tax Claim Bureau’s (the Bureau) sale of her property to Heather 

Gilbert (Purchaser) at a public tax sale. On appeal, Objector argues the trial court 

erred in determining the Bureau: (1) complied with the notice provisions of the Real 

Estate Tax Sale Law1(Tax Sale Law) and (2) established good cause to waive 

personal service. Upon review, we affirm.

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

I. Background

The underlying facts are not in dispute in this matter. Therefore, we begin by 

accepting the trial court’s factual background, which is based in large part on the 

parties’ stipulations:

[Objector] acquired . . . Tax Parcel No. 07-11-114 in Franklin 

Township, Greene County [(the Property)] by deed dated October 17, 

2012. For the 2019 and 2020 tax years, [Objector] failed to pay her 

taxes. The amount of back taxes owed was $7,771.98 at the time of 

sale. On April 6, 2020, a certified letter was sent by the [Bureau] stating 

the amount of back tax due . . . with delivery on April 11, 2020 marked 

“COVID.” As the taxes remained unpaid, the first notice of Public Sale 

scheduled for September 15, 2021[,] was sent on May 4, 2021[,] by 

certified mail and remained unclaimed. Two unsuccessful attempts of 

personal service were made by [the Bureau], through [its] agent, on

[Friday] June 11, 2021[,] and [Saturday] June 12, 2021. On June 11, 

notice of the Upset Sale was posted on the [P]roperty. Publication of 

the sale was advertised . . . on July 29, 2021[,] and . . . July 30, 2021. 

On August 25, 2021, a ten-day notice was mailed and not returned to 

[the Bureau]. On September 8th, [the Bureau] petitioned the Court for 

waiver of personal service upon good cause shown. An Order for 

waiver of personal service was entered on September 8th, 2021[,] by 

[trial court] Judge Carpenter [(Judge Carpenter)].

The [P]roperty was sold on September 15, 2021[,] for $7,771.84. On 

September 17th, notice that the [P]roperty was sold was sent via 

certified mail but went unclaimed. Subsequently, a confirmation nisi 

and a decree absolute were entered by the [trial court]. [The Bureau] 

conveyed the [P]roperty via deed to [Purchaser]. On December 15, 

2021, [Objector] filed an Exception and Objection to Sale.

Trial Ct. Order and Opinion, 3/10/22, at 1-3.

When the Bureau filed its Petition to Waive Personal Service (the Petition), 

the Bureau’s factual averments relating to its attempts to personally serve Objector

stated:
3

4. Those owner-occupied properties described in Exhibit A are 

ones for which the [Bureau’s] serving agent attempted personal service 

on the owners thereof, but after good faith efforts failed to locate said 

owners, and therefore notices were posted on the premises.

5. The failure of personal service on the owners of said 

properties for the good cause shown gives [the trial c]ourt the power to 

waive the requirements of personal notice, and to permit the properties 

to be included in the scheduled sale. See [Section 601(3) of the Tax 

Sale Law,] 72 P.S. [§] 5860.601(3). 

Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 2a. Exhibit A to the Petition is a spreadsheet listing 

39 different properties. Id. at 5a. With respect to the Property, Exhibit A listed two

property numbers, “Amanda G Johnson” as the “Tax Payer,” “6/11/2021” as the 

“Date,” “2:23:00 PM” as the “Time,” and “No Contact” as the “Outcome.” Id. On 

the same day the Bureau filed the Petition, Judge Carpenter signed an order waiving 

the Bureau’s obligation to personally serve Objector “for good cause shown.” R.R. 

at 6a. 

After the tax sale, Objector filed her “Objection to Tax Sale” (the Objections),

requesting the trial court to strike the sale of the Property because the Bureau did not 

provide her with proper notice under the Tax Sale Law. R.R. at 10a-11a. The trial 

court held a hearing on the Objections. At the hearing, the Bureau’s Director 

testified that its process server attempted to personally serve Objector on two 

occasions, once on a Friday afternoon and once on a Saturday morning. Id. at 197a, 

214a-15a. The Bureau’s Director also explained that Objector called the tax claim 

office on July 22, 2021, and was aware that she needed to pay the 2019 taxes to 

avoid the Property being sold at a tax sale. Id. at 217a. Objector testified at the 

hearing, admitting she saw the posting on the Property, but alleging the Bureau 

informed her over the phone that the posting was for a trailer on her property rather 

than for the Property itself. Id. at 221a.
4

In denying Objector’s requested relief, the trial court found Objector’s 

testimony about her July 2021 phone call with the Bureau was not credible and

determined Objector received actual notice of the tax sale because she admitted to 

seeing the physical posting. Trial Ct. Order and Opinion, 3/10/22, at 5-6, 7. As a 

result, the trial court determined the Bureau was not obligated to strictly comply with 

the notice requirements of Section 602 of the Tax Sale Law, 72 P.S. § 5860.602

(Section 602).

2

 Id. at 6 (citing In re Consol. Reports and Returns by the Tax Claims 

Bureau of Northumberland Cnty. of Props., 132 A.3d 637 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (en 

banc) (hereinafter, “Appeal of Neff ”)). The trial court also determined the Bureau 

had shown good cause for the trial court to waive personal service under Section 

601(a)(3) of the Tax Sale Law, 72 P.S. § 5860.601(a)(3) (Section 601(a)(3)).

3

 Id.

2 Section 602 requires the Bureau to provide a property owner with service by publication, 

posting, and mail before an upset tax sale. See 72 P.S. § 5860.602. Regarding publication, Section 

602(a) requires the Bureau to publish notice in two newspapers of general circulation and one legal 

journal, “if any [are] designated by the court for the publication of legal notices” at least 30 days 

before the scheduled sale. 72 P.S. § 5860.602(a). Section 602(e)(3) requires the Bureau to post 

the property at least 10 days before the sale, “in a manner that is ‘reasonable and likely to inform 

the taxpayer, as well as the public at large, of an intended real property sale.’” In re Consol. 

Reports and Returns by the Tax Claims Bureau of Northumberland Cnty. of Props., 132 A.3d 637, 

645 n.13 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (citation omitted); 72 P.S. § 5860.602(e)(3). Finally, Section 

602(e)(1) requires the Bureau to send notice to each owner by “certified mail, restricted delivery, 

return receipt requested, postage prepaid” at least 30 days before the sale. 72 P.S. § 

5860.602(e)(1). If the Bureau does not receive a return receipt from its certified mailing for each 

owner, then “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” 

at least 10 days before the sale. Id.

3 Section 601(a)(3) provides:

No owner-occupied property may be sold unless the bureau has given the 

owner occupant written notice of such sale at least ten (10) days prior to the 

date of actual sale by personal service by the sheriff or his deputy or person 

deputized by the sheriff for this purpose unless the county commissioners, by 

resolution, appoint a person or persons to make all personal services required by 

this clause. The sheriff or his deputy shall make a return of service to the bureau, 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
5

Objector appealed from the trial court’s order. On appeal, Objector argues the

trial court erred in determining the Bureau provided her with proper notice under 

Section 602. See Appellant’s Br. at 8. In addition, Objector argues the trial court 

erred in determining the Bureau established good cause to justify its request to waive 

Section 601(a)(3)’s personal service requirements. Id. at 8-10. 

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). When specifically reviewing a trial court’s decision 

to grant a tax claim bureau’s request to waive personal service, “we focus our inquiry 

on whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Appeal of Neff, 132 A.3d at 650. 

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). 

We begin by rejecting Objector’s argument the trial court erred in determining 

the Bureau satisfied Section 602’s service requirements because the Bureau did not 

serve her by certified mail. See Objector’s Br. at 8. While a tax sale is typically 

or the persons appointed by the county commissioners in lieu of the sheriff or his 

deputy shall file with the bureau written proof of service, setting forth the name of 

the person served, the date and time and place of service, and attach a copy of the 

notice which was served. If such personal notice cannot be served within 

twenty-five (25) days of the request by the bureau to make such personal 

service, the bureau may petition the court of common pleas to waive the 

requirement of personal notice for good cause shown. Personal service of notice 

on one of the owners shall be deemed personal service on all owners.

72 P.S. § 5860.601(a)(3) (emphasis added). 
6

void in the face of defective service, this Court has determined that “strict 

compliance with the notice requirements of Section 602 is not required when the 

[b]ureau proves that a property owner received actual notice of a pending tax sale.” 

Appeal of Neff, 132 A.3d at 645 (citing Sabbeth v. Tax Claim Bureau of Fulton Cnty., 

714 A.2d 514, 517 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998)). The trial court determined Objector had

actual notice of the tax sale because Objector admitted to seeing the physical posting 

on the Property. Because Objector received actual notice, the Bureau was not 

required to show it satisfied Section 602’s certified mailing requirement. See id. 

Next, we turn to Objector’s argument the trial court erred in determining the 

Bureau established good cause to waive Section 601(a)(3)’s personal service 

requirement. Unlike Section 602, “actual notice of the tax sale does not waive strict 

compliance with the personal service requirements of Section 601(a)(3).” Appeal of 

Neff, 132 A.3d at 646 (citing McKelvey v. Westmoreland Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 

983 A.2d 1271, 1274 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009)). In Famageltto v. County of Erie Tax 

Claim Bureau, 133 A.3d 337 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), this Court explained Section 

601(a)(3)’s purpose, as follows:

Section 601(a)(3) demonstrates the General Assembly’s “heightened 

concern for owner occupants being divested of the very property in 

which they are residing.” Matter of Tax Sales by Tax Claim Bureau of 

Dauphin County, 651 A.2d 1157, 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). We have 

said that, “[b]y enacting [S]ection 601[(a)(3)], the [General Assembly] 

expressed a desire to provide a qualitatively different type of notice to 

an owner[-]occupant and afford such owner with increased protection 

by way of additional notice.” McKelvey[, 983 A.2d at 1274]. Yet, the 

General Assembly understood that, in certain circumstances, tax claim 

bureaus should not be required to incur the high costs associated with 

ensuring that notice was received by each owner-occupant personally 

and included a provision within Section 601(a)(3) of the [Tax Sale] Law 

allowing the personal service of notice requirement to be waived for 

“good cause shown.” The General Assembly decided to place a burden 

on the taxing bureaus to provide justification for a waiver and to give 
7

trial courts the task of balancing the goal of providing heightened notice 

to owner-occupants against the taxing bureaus’ obligations to collect 

property taxes. See [Appeal of Neff], 132 A.3d [at] 650 . . . .

Famageltto, 133 A.3d at 346-47. 

In Famageltto, a trial court judge reviewed a tax claim bureau’s waiver 

petition, which requested a waiver of personal service of notice for approximately 

1,700 property owners. Id. at 347-48. The waiver petition included “an averment 

that the process server ‘made a good faith attempt to make personal service on the 

owner-occupiers’ and that ‘[a]ll other requirements of notice . . . have been 

accomplished.’” Id. at 348 (citation omitted). Based upon those averments, the trial 

court judge made an initial determination that the tax claim bureau had good cause

to waive personal service. Id. Upon review, we noted:

[A] presumption of regularity . . . attaches to all official acts [of the tax 

claim bureau]. See Hughes v. Chaplin, . . . 132 A.2d 200, 202 ([Pa.]

1957) (stating that “a prima facie presumption of the regularity of the 

acts of public officers exists until the contrary appears . . . . In tax sales 

it is particularly suitable” (internal quotations omitted). Based on the 

evidence presented to [the trial court judge], and given the presumption 

of regularity that attaches to the [b]ureau’s activities, we cannot say that 

the [w]aiver [p]etition was facially defective or that [the trial court 

judge] abused his discretion in finding that the [b]ureau showed good 

cause for receiving the waiver of personal service of notice at that time. 

However, this proceeding was necessarily one-sided because the 

property owners had not been found or become part of the process.

It was only later in the statutory tax sale process that [the a]ppellants 

could become involved. . . . [The a]ppellants filed exceptions, and their 

challenge rebuts the presumption of regularity of the [b]ureau’s 

activities. [The a]ppellants’ exceptions are resolved through a 

confrontational process where the burden is initially on the [b]ureau to 

show that it strictly complied with the notice requirements of the [Tax 

Sale] Law. [In re Tax Sale of Real Property Situated in] Jefferson 

Township, 828 A.2d [475,] 478–79 [(Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)]. It is not until 

this point, in the context of the adversarial proceeding, that evidence 

can be presented and tested, that a determination as to whether there 
8

was in fact good cause to waive the personal service of notice 

requirement for that property should be made, at the same time all the 

other notice requirements are tested.

Allowing review at this hearing effectuates the legislative intent of the 

personal service of notice requirement for owner-occupied 

properties . . . . Upon receipt of a petition to waive the personal service 

of notice requirement of Section 601(a)(3), the trial judge may exercise 

discretion and find that good cause was shown sufficient to permit the 

waiver of personal service of notice without further, and often 

unnecessary, costs to tax claim bureaus and the courts. For example, in 

this case, the petition included 1,700 properties. However, once a 

property owner challenges the tax sale, and tax claim bureaus are 

required to meet the burden of proving that compliance with the notice 

requirements of the [Tax Sale] Law in an adversarial proceeding, there 

is opportunity to test whether the heightened requirements for notice to 

owner-occupants were in fact met. Thus, the legislative intent to 

provide additional protections for owner-occupants is fulfilled in a costeffective manner, which enables a full hearing and determination on the 

evidence at the time when a judge can be presented with all of the 

evidence. Because this second judge can be presented with additional 

and different evidence from both parties regarding the tax claim 

bureau’s efforts to comply with the [Tax Sale] Law’s personal service 

of notice requirement, the second judge is not deciding the same 

questions as the first judge . . . .

Famageltto, 133 A.3d at 348-49. 

The Petition alleged the Bureau made good faith efforts to personally serve 

Objector and posted the Property. Because the Bureau’s actions are cloaked in a 

presumption of regularity, we cannot say the Petition was facially defective. See

Famageltto, 133 A.3d at 348. Therefore, we must determine whether the evidence 

the Bureau presented at the hearing on the Objections was sufficient to establish 

good cause to waive personal service under Section 601(a)(3). See id. at 348-89. 

In Appeal of Neff, this Court noted that while “good cause shown” is not 

defined in the Tax Sale Law, Pennsylvania courts have defined it to require a

“substantial reason, one that affords a legal excuse.” Appeal of Neff, 132 A.3d at 650
9

(citation omitted). We also explained that what constitutes good cause shown will 

depend on the particular facts and circumstances in each case. Id. at 649-50. Finally, 

we noted “‘the determination of whether good cause has been demonstrated is 

trusted to the trial court’s sound discretion.’” Id. at 650 (citation omitted). 

In Appeal of Neff, a tax claim bureau petitioned for a waiver of Section 

601(a)(3)’s personal service requirements. In the tax claim bureau’s petition, it 

averred that it attempted personal service “on three different days at three different 

times of the day and that it satisfied the other notice requirements of Section 602

[i.e., publication, posting and certified mail] of the [Tax Sale] Law.” Id. at 651. In 

addition, the tax claim bureau attached an exhibit that listed the dates and times of 

each of its three service attempts. Id. We concluded the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in granting the tax claim bureau a waiver of Section 601(a)(3)’s personal 

service requirement, opining:

The trial court, cognizant that someone’s home was at stake, that the 

purpose of the [Tax Sale] Law is to protect local governments from 

persistent tax delinquents, [and] that the [local tax claim bureau]

attested to the fact that it satisfied the notice requirements of Section 

602 of the [Tax Sale] Law, and attempted personal service three times 

at three different times of the day, utilized its discretion to determine 

that personal service of notice should be waived.

Id. 

While we determined in Appeal of Neff that “actual notice of the tax sale does 

not waive strict compliance with the personal service requirements of Section 

601(a)(3),” a trial court can consider the steps a tax claim bureau took to satisfy the 

service requirements of Section 602 and Section 601(a)(3) in determining whether a 

tax claim bureau established good cause to waive personal service under Section 

601(a)(3). See Appeal of Neff, 132 A.3d at 646, 651 (considering the tax claim 
10

bureau’s attempts at personal service and its satisfaction of the notice requirements 

of Section 602 in determining whether good cause existed to waive personal 

service). 

Here, the Bureau established it attempted personal service on two occasions, 

once during the work week and once during the weekend, at different times of day. 

The Bureau also established it published notice of the tax sale and attempted to serve 

Objector through the mail on numerous occasions. In addition, the Bureau 

established it posted the Property and Objector had actual notice of the tax sale by 

virtue of seeing the posting. Under these circumstances, we cannot hold the trial 

court abused its discretion in determining the Bureau established good cause to 

waive personal service. 

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the trial court’s order. 

______________________________

STACY WALLACE, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Amanda Johnson, :

 Appellant : No. 266 C.D. 2022

 : 

v. : 

: 

Greene County Tax Claim Bureau :

and Heather Gilbert :

O R D E R 

 AND NOW, this 16th day of January 2024, the March 10, 2022 order of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Greene County is AFFIRMED. 

______________________________

STACY WALLACE, Judge