IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

David Sobolewski and :

Janet Sobolewski, :

Appellants :

:

v. : No. 117 C.D. 2019

: Submitted: May 24, 2019

Schuylkill County Tax Claim :

Bureau, In Re: Consolidated :

Return of the Tax Claim Bureau :

of Schuylkill County From :

the September 17, 2018 Upset Sale :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE SIMPSON FILED: July 31, 2019

David Sobolewski (Mr. Sobolewski) and Janet Sobolewski (Mrs. 

Sobolewski) (collectively, Owners) appeal an order of the Court of Common Pleas 

of Schuylkill County (trial court) that dismissed their objections to the tax sale of 

their property for nonpayment of real estate taxes. Owners argue the trial court erred 

in determining the Schuylkill County Tax Claim Bureau (Bureau) complied with the 

notice requirements under the Real Estate Tax Sale Law (Tax Sale Law).

1

 Owners

also contend the sale was stayed because they entered into a payment plan with the 

Bureau. Further, Owners assert the personal service did not comport with the Tax 

Sale Law. 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 trial court made the following relevant findings of fact. Owners 

resided at and owned the dwelling located at 110 Bayview Avenue, McAdoo, 

Pennsylvania, 18237, in Kline Township, Schuylkill County (Property). According 

to Bureau records, Owners did not pay taxes due on the Property for tax year 2016. 

The Bureau scheduled an upset sale for September 17, 2018.

In May 2018, the Bureau sent notices of the tax sale by certified mail 

to both Owners at the Property’s mailing address. Mrs. Sobolewski signed the return 

receipt card. However, Mr. Sobolewski’s receipt card was returned as unclaimed. 

In August 2018, the Bureau sent a second notice by first-class mail to Mr. 

Sobolewski at the Property’s mailing address. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 153a. 

The mail was not returned as undeliverable. R.R. at 81a. 

A county-appointed tax claim poster (County Poster) posted notice of 

the sale on the front door of the Property on July 21, 2018, and filed an affidavit of 

the posting. County Poster then returned to the Property and personally served both

Owners with notice on July 29th. Mrs. Sobolewski signed the notice acknowledging 

personal service. More than 30 days before the sale, the Bureau published notice in 

the Republican Herald, the South Schuylkill News, and the Schuylkill Legal Record. 

The Property was sold to 100818 Portfolio Trust (Purchaser) at the sale.

After receipt of post-sale notices mailed to the Property’s mailing address, Owners 

filed timely objections to the sale in October 2018. The trial court heard the 

objections in December 2018.
3

At the hearing, the Bureau’s Director (Director) and County Poster 

testified on the Bureau’s behalf, and Owners testified on their own behalf. 

Director testified that although Mr. Sobolewski did not retrieve the May 

notice sent by certified mail from the post office, the post office did not indicate an 

alternate address for him. The Bureau did not further investigate Mr. Sobolewski’s 

address because there was no reason to believe a better address existed “based on 

the unclaimed sticker.” R.R. at 93a. As to the second notice sent to Mr. Sobolewski

by first-class mail, Director explained a mailing address is deemed valid when the 

mail is not returned, and the mail was not returned here. Director also confirmed 

that County Poster was appointed by the Board of County Commissioners (Board) at 

a public meeting as documented in the meeting minutes. See R.R. at 82a, 161a. She 

advised the Bureau complied with all notice requirements under the Tax Sale Law. 

As to Owners’ allegations regarding a payment plan, Director testified

on rebuttal that to initiate a payment plan, the parties execute a written agreement in 

which the owner agrees to tender 25% of the total amount of taxes due on the 

property. Director explained the Bureau documents calls from owners about 

particular properties and related payment plans. However, there was no record of a 

call from Mrs. Sobolewski to the Bureau regarding the Property. 

County Poster testified he has been a duly appointed poster for the 

Bureau for seven years. County Poster described his two visits to the Property in 

July 2018. During his first visit on July 21st, County Poster posted notice on the 

Property because Owners were not home. At his second visit on July 29th, County 
4

Poster personally served Owners. He recalled Mr. Sobolewski answered the door 

and invited him inside. County Poster stated Mr. Sobolewski shared with him that 

Mrs. Sobolewski handled the bills. County Poster identified both Mr. and Mrs. 

Sobolewski at the hearing as the individuals he personally served with notice of the 

sale. County Poster particularly remembered Mr. Sobolewski because he reminded 

him of a friend. 

In support of their objections, Owners claimed they never saw a notice 

posted on the Property. They both confirmed County Poster visited the Property on 

July 29th and informed them of the September sale. Mr. Sobolewski admitted he 

received notice in person. R.R. at 118a, 120a. Mrs. Sobolewski recalled telling 

County Poster at the time that she paid the delinquent taxes on the Property, and he 

advised her to call the Bureau’s office. She testified that when she contacted the 

Bureau, she was told she could enter into a payment plan by making minimum 

monthly payments of $100. However, Mrs. Sobolewski could not recall with whom 

she spoke. R.R. at 114a. 

Mrs. Sobolewski made two payments on the delinquent taxes: $100 on 

August 20, 2018, and $150 on September 4, 2018. She believed she effectively 

entered into a payment plan, and in so doing, stayed the sale of the Property. Mrs. 

Sobolewski said she received a payment confirmation email from the Bureau,2 and 

thus, she did not follow-up with the Bureau about the status after making these

payments. Both Owners testified they were able to pay the delinquent taxes in full 

on the Property, and would have done so had they known the sale was still scheduled.

 

2 However, a copy of this email was not submitted during the hearing. 
5

By order dated January 7, 2019, the trial court upheld the tax sale, and 

it dismissed Owners’ objections. Owners appealed. In their statement of errors

complained of on appeal, they essentially argued: (1) the Bureau did not comply 

with the notice requirements under the Tax Sale Law for posting or mailing to Mr. 

Sobolewski, and it failed to exercise reasonable efforts to locate him; (2) County 

Poster was not authorized to personally serve notice; and (3) Owners entered into a 

payment plan with the Bureau, staying the sale. 

In its Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court found the Bureau strictly 

complied with the notice requirements in the Tax Sale Law. It reasoned the Bureau 

had no obligation to exercise additional efforts to locate Mr. Sobolewski after County 

Poster personally served him at the Property. The trial court explained when an owner 

receives actual notice, the Bureau does not have to make additional reasonable efforts 

under Section 607.1 of the Tax Sale Law, 72 P.S. §5860.607a.

3

 Further, the trial court 

found Owners only paid 13% of the taxes owed, not 25% of the delinquency as was 

necessary to stay the sale under Section 603 of the Tax Sale Law, 72 P.S. §5860.603.

II. Discussion

On appeal,4 Owners argue the Bureau did not comply with the notice 

requirements under the Tax Sale Law. They challenge County Poster’s authority to 

make personal service. Owners also contend the tax sale should have been stayed 

because they entered into a payment plan with the Bureau. 

 

3 Added by the Act of July 3, 1986, P.L. 351.

4 Our review in a tax sale case is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its 

discretion, committed an error of law, or rendered a decision unsupported by the evidence.

Montgomery Cty. Tax Claim Bureau v. Queenan, 108 A.3d 947 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015).
6

A. Notice Requirements

Section 602 of the Tax Sale Law requires three different forms of notice 

to property owners before a tax sale: publication, posting, and mail. 72 P.S. 

§5680.602. The tax claim bureau has the burden of proving strict compliance with 

all three statutory notification requirements. In re Tax Claim Bureau of Beaver Cty. 

Tax Sale Sept. 10, 1990, 600 A.2d 650 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). If any of the three types 

of notice are defective, the sale is void. Id. 

In addition, for owner-occupied properties, the tax claim bureau must 

personally serve the owners before it may conduct a valid sale of the property. 

Section 601(a)(3) of the Tax Sale Law provides that personal service must be 

performed by a sheriff or his deputy or a person deputized by sheriff, “unless the 

county commissioners, by resolution, appoint a person to make all personal services 

required” for owner-occupied properties. 72 P.S. §5860.601(a)(3).

1. Posted Notice

Owners argue the sale is void because they did not observe a notice

posted on the Property. Section 602(e)(3) of the Tax Sale Law states, “[e]ach 

property scheduled for sale shall be posted at least ten (10) days prior to the sale.” 

72 P.S. §5860.602(e)(3). An affidavit of posting, which indicates the date and time 

notice was posted on the property, serves as competent evidence that notice was 

posted on the subject property. Barylak v. Montgomery Cty. Tax Claim Bureau, 74 

A.3d 414 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). 
7

In order to prove proper posting, the Bureau presented testimony from 

the County Poster who posted notice on the Property. It also submitted a notarized 

affidavit indicating the date and time the notice was posted on the Property. Owners 

sought to counter the Bureau’s evidence with their own testimony that they did not 

observe the posted notice on the Property. However, a fact-finder may reject an

owner’s contrary evidence that he did not see the posted notice. Barylak. The trial 

court, as fact-finder, has exclusive authority to make credibility determinations, 

weigh evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented. Id. The 

trial court did not credit the testimony of Mr. Sobolewski or that of Mrs. Sobolewski

concerning the posted notice. Further, the affidavit of posting corroborates County 

Poster’s in-person testimony that notice was properly posted on the Property. Id.; 

see R.R. at 162a. Therefore, the Bureau established proper posting. 

2. Reasonable Efforts & Mailed Notice 

Next, Owners contend the Bureau was required to exercise reasonable 

efforts to locate Mr. Sobolewski because it never received a return receipt card from 

him. Owners argue the sale is void for failing to notify Mr. Sobolewski by mail.

Due process requires a tax claim bureau to conduct “reasonable 

investigations to ascertain the identity and whereabouts of the latest owners of record 

of property subject to an upset sale for purposes of providing notice to that party.” 

Farro v. Tax Claim Bureau of Monroe Cty., 704 A.2d 1137, 1142 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). 

Section 607.1(a) of the Tax Sale Law defines “reasonable efforts” in part as: 

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 
8

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.

72 P.S. §5860.607a(a).

The purpose of “reasonable efforts” is to effectuate notice on an owner. 

As found by the trial court, the Bureau sent proper notice by certified mail, return 

receipt requested, to both Owners. When only Mr. Sobolewski’s notice was returned 

as unclaimed, the Bureau sent notice by first-class mail to him at the Property’s 

mailing address. This notice was not returned, and there was no indication that the 

address the Bureau used was inaccurate. 

In an analogous case, In re Tax Sale of Real Property Situated in 

Jefferson Township, 828 A.2d 475 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), we held the bureau was not 

required to check outside records, search the internet, or look at phone directories, 

when it had already confirmed the correct mailing address using assessment records. 

Here, the Bureau confirmed it had the correct mailing address. Like the owner in 

Jefferson Township, Mr. Sobolewski “simply chose not to go to the post office to 

retrieve [his] certified mail and[,] the subsequent notice sent to [Owner] at [his] 

correct address by first class mail was not returned.” Id. at 480 (emphasis added). 

Relevant here, Owners do not suggest that the Bureau used an incorrect 

mailing address for Mr. Sobolewski. Significantly, had the Bureau conducted

additional notification efforts, it would not have found another address or means of 

notifying him. R.R. at 117a. Indeed, Mr. Sobolewski confirmed his address as the 

Property address the Bureau used. Id. Also, the notice mailed to Mr. Sobolewski by 
9

first-class mail was not returned. Thus, the Bureau had no cause to question the 

validity of the mailing address. See Pitts v. Delaware Cty. Tax Claim Bureau, 967

A.2d 1047, 1055 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (en banc) (emphasizing Jefferson Township).

Further, there is no dispute Mr. Sobolewski had actual notice of the tax sale through 

personal service at the Property, which is the address the Bureau used for its mailings. 

Here, there was no need to exercise additional efforts to notify Mr. Sobolewski 

because the Bureau had already confirmed his address and personally served him. 

3. Personal Service

Additionally, Owners advance a statutory violation under Section 

601(a)(3) of the Tax Sale Law. Specifically, they contend the Bureau’s failure to 

produce the resolution appointing County Poster at the hearing means he lacked 

authority to personally serve Owners. As such, Owners claim the sale is invalid 

based on improper personal service. 

Section 601(a)(3) of the Tax Sale Law in relevant part 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. 

72 P.S. §5860.601(a)(3) (emphasis added). The statute thus requires a formal 

appointment of a specific person to personally serve an owner-occupier.
10

The Bureau must prove it “personally served notice on any owneroccupant of the Property subject to the upset tax sale or obtained a waiver of personal 

service from the trial court.” In re Consol. Reports & Return by Tax Claims Bureau 

of Northumberland Cty. of Props., 132 A.3d 637, 646 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 

141 A.3d 482 (Pa. 2016). 

Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Owners had 

actual notice of the sale. In particular, the record reflects that Owners received notice

by personal service of the sale. The trial court credited County Poster’s testimony 

that he twice visited the Property to personally serve Owners. Moreover, the affidavit 

clearly provides two dates “7-21-18 3:00 P[M],” corresponding with County Poster’s

first attempt to serve Owners and subsequent posting of notice on the Property, and 

“7-29-18 9:00 P[M],” concerning the actual date of personal service. R.R. at 15a. 

The affidavit displays Mrs. Sobolewski’s signature, indicating that personal service 

was in fact completed. Id. Further, Mr. Sobolewski admitted that he received 

personal service at the Property on the date stated in the affidavit. R.R. at 118a.

Relying on the dissenting opinion in Northumberland, Owners contend 

the tax sale is invalid because the Bureau did not produce the official resolution

regarding County Poster’s appointment. The dissent noted that although a county 

may appoint qualified persons under Section 601(a)(3) of the Tax Sale Law, “the 

appointment is not to be done casually but only by formal resolution.” Id. at 657. 

However, Northumberland is factually distinguishable from the present matter. 
11

Unlike in Northumberland, there is no question that Owners were 

personally served here; rather, the dispute surrounds whether substantial evidence 

established that County Poster was properly authorized to personally serve Owners. 

Owners cite no decisional law that requires inclusion of a county’s 

resolution in the evidentiary record to show compliance with the personal service 

mandate in Section 601(a)(3) of the Tax Sale Law. While the record does not include 

an official copy of the resolution, the Bureau properly established its existence with 

other evidence. 

Here, the Bureau’s witnesses consistently testified that, during a June 

20, 2012 public meeting, the Board appointed County Poster as the Bureau’s 

designee for both posting and effectuating personal service of tax sale notices. 

County Poster testified he was “appointed . . . by the [Board] back in 2012.” R.R. 

at 98a. He emphasized, “back then I know I was appointed by the [Board]. And 

I’ve been doing it for seven years now.” R.R. at 102a. Director’s testimony 

confirmed “[County Poster] was appointed by the Board” by a motion made during 

the June 20, 2012 public meeting. R.R. at 83a, 94a. When asked about

documentation to support that the Board appointed County Poster other than the 

minutes, Director responded she did not have the resolution with her.5 R.R. at 94a.

Importantly, the record includes a copy of the June 20, 2012 meeting 

minutes in which the Board appointed County Poster to post and personally serve 

 

5

In closing arguments, counsel for Purchaser reiterated the evidence of County Poster’s 

authority. He also stated, “[The Bureau] brought a copy of – admittedly it’s unsigned, but there’s 

a resolution that [County Poster] was appointed by the [Board].” R.R. at 131a.
12

notice of tax sales on behalf of the Bureau. R.R. at 161a. The trial court determined 

this evidence, corroborated by testimony from the Bureau’s witnesses, was sufficient

to support a finding that County Poster was properly appointed to effectuate personal 

service of tax sales under Section 601(a)(3) of the Tax Sale Law. 

The evidence as a whole establishes County Poster was formally

appointed by the county commissioners as required by the Tax Sale Law. We note 

Owners reference no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, we discern no error by 

the trial court in concluding that the Bureau complied with the personal service 

requirements in Section 601(a)(3) of the Tax Sale Law.

B. Payment Plan

Lastly, Owners argue the tax sale must be stayed because the Bureau 

agreed to a payment plan in August 2018. More particularly, Owners maintain Mrs. 

Sobolewski contacted the Bureau and was informed she could enter into a payment 

plan by making monthly payments of $100. Mrs. Sobolewski made payments in 

August and September 2018. Had they known the payment plan was not effective as 

a stay on the sale, Owners contend they would have paid the delinquent taxes in full.

Pursuant to Section 603 of the Tax Sale Law, an owner may stay the 

sale of the subject property by paying the taxes in full or by entering into “an 

agreement, in writing, with the bureau to stay the sale of the property upon the 

payment of twenty-five per centum (25%) of the amount due on all tax claims and 

tax judgments filed or entered against such property . . . .” 72 P.S. §5860.603 

(emphasis added). An owner establishes a “payment plan” with the bureau to pay 
13

all of the tax claims in no more than “three [] installment payments within one [] 

year of the date of said agreement.” Id. However, without a tender of 25% of taxes 

due, a sale cannot be stayed. In re Upset Sale Tax Claim Bureau of Wayne Cty. 

Held Sept. 12, 1994, 672 A.2d 846 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). 

Unfortunately, we are constrained by the plain language of Section 603 

of the Tax Sale Law. Despite Mrs. Sobolewski’s assertion that she was informed 

otherwise by a Bureau representative, a payment plan does not stay a sale without 

tendering a 25% payment on the delinquent taxes. Here, Mrs. Sobolewski’s payments 

represent only 13% of the taxes, which by statute was insufficient to stay the sale. 

Further, there is no evidence of a written agreement between the Bureau and Mrs. 

Sobolewski or documentation of Mrs. Sobolewski’s alleged phone call to the Bureau. 

The Bureau’s evidence tended to refute that such a phone call occurred, and the trial 

court referred to the Bureau’s evidence in its opinion.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order.

 

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

David Sobolewski and :

Janet Sobolewski, :

Appellants :

:

v. : No. 117 C.D. 2019

:

Schuylkill County Tax Claim :

Bureau, In Re: Consolidated :

Return of the Tax Claim Bureau :

of Schuylkill County From :

the September 17, 2018 Upset Sale :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 31st day of July 2019, the order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Schuylkill County is AFFIRMED.

 

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge