IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Edwin O. Crespo and Angelica Crespo, :

Appellants :

:

v. :

:

Lehigh Valley Tax Claim Bureau and : No. 1169 C.D. 2016

Abijah Immanuel : Argued: December 15, 2016

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: January 5, 2017

Edwin O. and Angelica Crespo (together, Crespos) appeal the order of 

the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County (trial court) denying their petition to 

set aside the tax upset sale of their property for delinquent taxes (Petition). For the 

reasons that follow, we affirm.

I.

The Crespos owned and resided at 715 Kiowa Street, Allentown, 

Lehigh County, Pennsylvania (Property). Because they failed to pay their 2010 

and 2011 real estate and school taxes, the Lehigh County Tax Claim Bureau 

(Bureau) scheduled an upset tax sale of the Property to be held in September 2012 
2

pursuant to the Real Estate Tax Sale Law (Law).1 However, on August 3, 2012, 

the Crespos and the Bureau entered an agreement staying the sale and the Crespos 

agreed to make installment payments on the delinquent taxes until they were 

current.

When the Crespos failed to pay the required installments, the Bureau 

mailed them notice of their default and advised them that the Property would again 

be listed for tax sale. In response to that notice, Mrs. Crespo called the Bureau to 

arrange another stay of the sale and installment payment plan but was advised that 

because of the default of the prior agreement, they would not be eligible for 

another agreement until 2016. The Bureau listed the Property for tax sale to occur 

on September 11, 2013.

On June 27, 2013, the Bureau sent to each of the Crespos, by certified 

mail, a notice that the Property was going to be exposed to tax sale on that date. 

The parties stipulated that both Mr. and Mrs. Crespo received and signed certified 

mail receipts for this notice.

2 The parties also stipulated that notice of the tax sale 

was properly published in accordance with Section 602(a) of the Law, 72 P.S. § 

5860.602(a). On July 16, 2013, Deputy Sheriff Anthus posted notice3of the tax 

 

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

2

Section 602(e)(1) of the Law, 72 P.S. § 5860.602(e)(1), provides that notice of the sale 

shall be given “[a]t 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 

this act.”

3

Section 602(e)(3) of the Law, 72 P.S. §5860.602(e)(3), states that “[e]ach property 

scheduled for sale shall be posted at least ten (10) days prior to the sale.”
3

sale on the Property. On that day and then the morning and the afternoon of the 

next day, he also attempted to make the required personal service of the notice of 

the scheduled tax sale on the Crespos but was unable to do so. See Section 

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

4

On September 10, 2013, the day before the scheduled tax sale, the 

Bureau filed a petition in the trial court pursuant to Section 601(a)(3) of the Law to 

waive personal service on the Crespos. The Bureau admittedly did not serve the 

Crespos with a copy of this petition. The trial court granted the Bureau’s petition 

and on September 11, 2013, Abijah Immanuel purchased the Property at the upset 

tax sale for $27,000 plus fees. The Crespos then filed a petition to set aside the 

sale claiming that the trial court erred in granting the Bureau’s petition to waive 

personal service and that the Bureau failed to properly post the Property.

 

4

72 P.S. § 5860.601(a)(3). That Section provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

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. . . . The sheriff or his deputy shall make a 

return of service to the bureau . . . 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.
4

II.

At a hearing before the trial court, Deputy Sheriff Anthus testified that 

he had been serving and posting tax notices for the Bureau for four years. His 

regular procedure was to attempt to serve the taxpayer three times and that on his 

first attempt, he would post the notice of the tax sale by taping it to a front door or 

window. He also testified that he attempted to make personal service on the 

Crespos three times – once in the afternoon on Wednesday July 16, 2013, and 

twice on Thursday July 17, 2013. All three visits occurred over a period of less 

than 24 hours, and Deputy Sheriff Anthus did not see any signs of activity in the 

house. He also testified that he posted notice on the front of the Crespos’ Property 

on his first attempt at personal service.

Tim Reeves (Reeves), the Bureau’s Director of Collections, testified 

that the Property was scheduled for an upset tax sale in 2012, but the sale did not 

occur because the Crespos entered into an installment payment agreement. The 

Crespos failed to comply with the agreement and the Bureau sent three default 

letters to the Crespos before listing the Property for tax sale. Reeves testified that 

Mrs. Crespo contacted the Bureau in May 2013 regarding the upcoming tax sale.

Mrs. Crespo testified that she was not at home on the two days that 

Deputy Sheriff Anthus attempted to serve her with notice of the tax sale. She also 

did not receive notice of the Bureau’s petition to waive personal service. On crossexamination, she testified that she contacted the Bureau in May 2013 to set up 

another payment plan, but the Bureau denied her request.
5

Finding that the Bureau satisfied the statutory notice requirements, the 

trial court denied the Crespos’ Petition to set aside the sale. It rejected the 

Crespos’ argument that personal service on them should not have been waived, 

reasoning that they admitted they had notice of the sale, that personal service had 

been attempted three times, and that the exception to personal service was “created 

so that parties cannot hide from actions which are brought against them. . . .” 

(Trial court’s February 4, 2014 Order.) Based upon Deputy Sheriff Anthus’ 

testimony, the trial court also found that the Property had been properly posted. 

This appeal followed.5

III.

A.

We begin with the Crespos’ arguments regarding the trial court’s 

decision granting the Bureau’s petition to waive the personal service requirement. 

The Crespos appear to argue that the trial court erred in granting the waiver 

petition because it was never served on the Crespos and the order was granted ex 

parte. This argument was recently rejected in In re: Consolidated Reports and 

Return by the Tax Claim Bureau of Northumberland County, 132 A.3d 637, 652 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), stating:

. . . we find no error in the trial court’s decision to 

address the Bureau’s Waiver Petition without notice to 

Objector. Because the ex parte process at issue concerns 

 

5 Our standard of review is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its 

discretion, rendered a decision lacking supporting evidence, or clearly erred as a matter of law. 

In re: Upset Sale Tax Claim Bureau McKean County on September 10, 2007, 965 A.2d 1244, 

1246 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).
6

the Bureau’s inability to serve Objector with notice of the 

tax sale, it follows that notice of an ex parte proceeding 

to waive service would be superfluous. Should Objector 

receive notice of the Waiver Petition and be given an 

opportunity to contest the Waiver Petition, there would 

be no need to waive personal service because Objector 

could be personally served with notice at the hearing.

As such, the Crespos’ argument is without merit.

The Crespos also argue that the trial court erred in granting the waiver 

petition because the Bureau’s three attempts at personal service in less than a 24-

hour period do not constitute “good cause shown” to justify exposing their 

Property to tax sale without having met this notice requirement. As the Crespos 

point out, “[t]he 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 Law 

and that, if any of the notices are ‘defective, the sale is void.’” In re: Upset Sale 

Tax Claim Bureau McKean County on September 10, 2007, 965 A.2d 1244, 1246-

47 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (quoting In re Upset Price Tax Sale of September 25, 1989, 

615 A.2d 870, 872 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992)) (footnote omitted). Strict compliance with 

the Law’s notice requirements is necessary “to guard against the deprivation of 

property without due process of law.” In the Matter of Tax Sale of 2003 Upset, 

860 A.2d 1184, 1187 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).

That being said, Section 601(a)(3) of the Law specifically provides 

that a tax claim bureau may seek waiver from the trial court of the personal service 

requirement upon good cause shown. While the Law does not define the term 

“good cause shown,” “we focus our inquiry on whether the trial court abused its 
7

discretion by granting the Bureau’s Waiver Petition and by considering the facts of 

this case in light of the fundamental purpose of the Law.” Northumberland 

County, 132 A.3d at 650. The intent of the Law is “to protect the local government 

against wilful [sic], persistent, long standing delinquents for whom we hold no 

brief, and to whom the appellate court decisions have consistently given short 

shrift.” Id. at 650-51 (quoting In re Return of Sale of Tax Claim Bureau (Ross 

Appeal), 76 A.2d 749, 753 (Pa. 1950)).

There is no dispute that Deputy Sheriff Anthus attempted to 

personally serve the Crespos on three occasions over the course of two different 

days. Rather, they claim that because those attempts at service occurred during a 

period of time less than 24 hours, more attempts needed to be made to constitute 

good cause to waive personal service. There is no requirement that attempted 

service be made over the course of days or weeks, only the attempt at service be 

reasonable under the circumstances. Given that service was attempted over two 

days, and on one of those days in the morning and afternoon and they already had 

notice of the sale by certified mail, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

finding that there was good cause to waive personal service. See Northumberland 

County, 132 A.3d at 651 (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting 

waiver petition where bureau attempted personal service three times on three 

different days).

B.

The Crespos next argue that the trial court erred in determining that 

the Property was properly posted with notice of the sale because Deputy Sheriff 
8

Anthus’ testimony that he “post[ed] the notice on the front of the property” is 

insufficient to meet the Bureau’s burden of proper posting because it is not clear 

whether he posted the notice on a door or window of the home, on the garage or 

elsewhere, and that there is no evidence that the posted notice was visible from the 

street or otherwise conspicuous to the owners or the public.

Section 602 of the Law does not explicitly state that a notice must be 

posted on the property subject to sale. It merely states that “[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). The posting required by the Law serves two purposes. It provides 

notice of the impending tax sale not only to the record owner but also to the public 

at large. This is important for third parties whose interest may be affected, such as 

mortgagors or other lien holders, and it advances the goal of increasing the number 

of bidders for the property. With more bidders, a higher sales price, presumably, 

will be realized, which benefits the delinquent taxpayer. In re Upset Price Tax 

Sale of September 10, 1990, 606 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992).

This Court has held that, “in the absence of specific statutory 

requirements . . . the method [of posting] used must be reasonable and such as 

would likely inform the taxpayer of the intended sale of the premises.” Id. at 1258 

(quoting Lapp v. County of Chester, 445 A.2d 1356, 1358 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982)). A 

practical, commonsense approach to determining whether a posting is reasonable is 

based upon the specific facts of each case. McKean County, 965 A.2d at 1248.
9

In this case, the only testimony regarding posting was from Deputy 

Sheriff Anthus. He testified that he posted the notice to the front of the Property in 

accord with his regular procedure to post the notice of a tax sale on the property by 

taping it to a front door or window. As our Supreme Court has explained, a 

presumption of the regularity of an official act such as posting notice, “exists until 

the contrary appears.” Hughes v. Chaplin, 132 A.2d 200, 202 (Pa. 1957) (quoting 

Beacom v. Robison, 43 A.2d 640, 643 (Pa. Super. 1945)). Once there was 

evidence that a posting had occurred, the burden shifted to the Crespos to establish 

that the notice was insufficient to give them notice or the public notice of the sale. 

The Crespos did not provide any testimony regarding posting notably, given they 

were the Property’s occupants, they did not see the posting or that the notice was 

posted somewhere that was inconspicuous. Given that there was no contrary 

evidence that the posting was not proper, the trial court did not err in determining 

that the Bureau complied with Section 602’s posting requirement and we affirm.

____________________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Edwin O. Crespo and Angelica Crespo, :

Appellants :

:

v. :

:

Lehigh Valley Tax Claim Bureau and :

Abijah Immanuel : No. 1169 C.D. 2015

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 5

th day of January, 2017, the order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Lehigh County in the above-captioned matter is hereby 

affirmed.

____________________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge