IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Tax Parcel No. :

1030-K13-683-00008 :

: No. 574 C.D. 2022

:

Appeal of: Laura E. Ordaz Moreno : Submitted: February 17, 2023

BEFORE: HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

JUDGE CEISLER FILED: April 18, 2023

Appellant Laura E. Ordaz Moreno (Ordaz Moreno), pro se, appeals from the 

Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County’s (Common Pleas) order, docketed on 

May 31, 2022, through which Common Pleas granted Appellee Kelly Padisak’s 

(Padisak) Petition to Disapprove Sale of Bigler Township Property Map. No. 1030-

K13-683-00008 (Petition to Disapprove). We affirm.

I. Background

This matter involves Tax Parcel No. 1030-K13-683-00008 (Property), which 

consists of four lots of vacant land in Clearfield County. Common Pleas Op. at 1. At 

some point in the recent past, the Clearfield County Tax Claim Bureau (Bureau) 

exposed the Property for public sale, due to the fact that taxes on the Property had

been in arrears since 2014. See id. The Bureau did not receive any successful bids 

for the Property, prompting the Bureau to make the Property available for private 

sale in 2017. Id. In 2022, Ordaz Moreno offered to pay the Bureau $400 for the 

Property. Id. The Bureau accepted Ordaz Moreno’s offer and publicly advertised its 
2

intent to consummate the sale, as required by Section 613(a) of the Real Estate Tax 

Sale Law (RETSL).1

On May 6, 2022, Padisak filed her Petition to Disapprove,2through which she 

objected to the pending sale of the Property on the basis that Ordaz Moreno’s offer 

1 Act of July 7, 1947, P.L. 1368, as amended, 72 P.S. § 5860.613(a). Per Section 613(a), 

in relevant part:

At any time after any property has been exposed to public sale and 

such property was not sold because no bid was made equal to the 

upset price, as hereinbefore provided, and whether or not 

proceedings are initiated pursuant to sections 610 through 612.1 [of 

RETSL], [a tax claim] bureau may, on its own motion, and shall, on 

the written instructions of any taxing district having any tax claims 

or tax judgments against said property, agree to sell the property at 

private sale, at any price approved by the bureau. Notice of the 

proposed sale, stating the price and the property proposed to be sold, 

shall be given to each such taxing district and to the owner of the 

property. Notice shall also be given by publication at least two (2) 

times, with approximately ten (10) days intervening between each 

publication, in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation 

published in the county where the property is located and in the 

official legal journal of that county. The notice by publication shall 

set forth the location of the property, the date and place of sale, the 

price and terms of sale, and the provision that the property will be 

sold free and clear of all tax claims and tax judgments.

72 P.S. § 5860.613(a).

2 Padisak’s challenge was permitted by Section 613(a) of RETSL, which provides, in 

relevant part: 

The corporate authorities of any taxing district having any tax claims 

or tax judgments against the property which is to be sold, the owner, 

an interested party, or a person interested in purchasing the property 

may, if not satisfied that the sale price approved by the bureau is 

sufficient, within forty-five (45) days after notice of the proposed 

sale, petition the court of common pleas of the county to disapprove 

the sale. The court shall, in such case, after notice to each such 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
3

of $400 was less that the Property’s market value. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 1a6a. On May 23, 2022, Common Pleas convened a hearing regarding the Petition to 

Disapprove. Id. at 7a.3 Ordaz Moreno appeared at this hearing and spoke in 

opposition to the Petition to Disapprove. In doing so, Ordaz Moreno told Common 

Pleas that she had previously been friends with Padisak, but that their relationship 

had completely deteriorated, to the point that Ordaz Moreno believed that Padisak’s 

interest in the Property was based solely on her desire to “screw” Ordaz Moreno by 

impeding the proposed sale. See id. at 11a-15a, 20a-21a. Additionally, Ordaz 

Moreno presented Common Pleas with case law that she believed supported her 

position that the Petition to Disapprove should not be granted. See id. at 17a-19a. At 

the close of the hearing, Common Pleas expressed its intent to grant the Petition to 

Disapprove and directed the Bureau to hold a private auction for the Property, at 

which Ordaz Moreno and Padisak would be the sole bidders and the minimum bid 

amount would be $600. Id. at 22a. Ordaz Moreno expressed her intent to appeal this 

decision and, as a result, Common Pleas directed the Bureau to schedule the auction 

no sooner than 30 days from the date of the hearing and informed the parties that the 

matter would be stayed in the event such an appeal was taken. Id. at 22a-23a.

Common Pleas then issued a formal order granting the Petition to Disapprove 

on May 24, 2022, and then docketed an amended order on May 31, 2022, that was 

virtually identical to the original, and only served to correct a typographical error. 

See id. at 25a-26a. Ordaz Moreno responded by filing her appeal with our Court on 

taxing district, the owner, the bureau, the purchaser and any other 

person who has joined in the petition, hear all parties.

72 P.S. § 5860.613(a).

3 The amount of unpaid taxes on the Property was, as of the date of this hearing, $1,580.73. 

R.R. at 13a.
4

June 9, 2022. On June 13, 2022, Common Pleas issued another order, through which 

it instructed Ordaz Moreno to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal 

(Statement of Errors) within 21 days, whereupon Ordaz Moreno complied with that 

order on July 5, 2022. The Bureau, Ordaz Moreno, and Padisak have each filed 

appellate briefs with our Court and, as such, this matter is ready for disposition.

II. Discussion

On appeal, Ordaz Moreno asserts a multitude of arguments in support of her 

position that Common Pleas improperly granted the Petition to Disapprove, which 

we reorder and summarize as follows. First, she claims that she was never properly 

served with the Petition to Disapprove, in violation of Section 613 of RETSL, Local 

Rules of Civil Procedure 206.1 and 206.4, and her constitutional right to due process. 

Ordaz Moreno’s Br. at 12-18. Second, she asserts that Common Pleas prevented her

from presenting evidence and witnesses at the May 23, 2022 hearing, in 

contravention of her due process rights. Id. at 25-27. Third, she alleges that Common 

Pleas exhibited bias and committed judicial misconduct by asking a local police 

chief about the state of affairs between her and Padisak shortly after the May 23, 

2022 hearing. Id. at 22-23. Finally, she maintains that Common Pleas abused its 

discretion and committed errors of law by misapplying case law and RETSL, 

misconstruing the factual record, and failing to properly weigh all of the 

considerations at play in this situation. Id. at 18-25.

Ordaz Moreno has waived her first three claims, due to her failure to raise any 

of them in a timely and procedurally proper fashion. “The law is well settled that 

issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal or 

in a Rule 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. Pa. R.A.P. 302(a); 
5

Orange Stones Co. v. City of Reading, 32 A.3d 287 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).” Kuziak v. 

Borough of Danville, 125 A.3d 470, 478-79 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). “Pennsylvania 

courts have consistently applied this rule . . . [and it is well settled that an] appellate 

court may sua sponte refuse to address an issue raised on appeal that was not raised 

and preserved below[.]” Siegfried v. Borough of Wilson, 695 A.2d 892, 894 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1997) (citations omitted). In this instance, Ordaz Moreno did not raise any 

notice or service-related issues when she appeared before Common Pleas, or seek to 

present evidence or witnesses beyond that which she was freely permitted to offer at 

the May 23, 2022 hearing. Furthermore, she neglected to include her allegations of 

bias and judicial misconduct in her Statement of Errors. Consequently, she did not 

properly preserve any of these issues for appellate consideration, rendering them 

waived.

With regard to Ordaz Moreno’s remaining issue, we do not agree that 

Common Pleas abused its discretion or committed an error of law by granting the 

Petition to Disapprove. When dealing with a challenge of this nature to a tax claim 

bureau’s proposed private sale, a court of common pleas

may either confirm or disapprove the sale as to it appears 

just and proper. If the sale is disapproved, the court shall 

at the same time fix a price below which such property 

shall not be sold and order that, if no private sale can be 

arranged, the property be sold at public judicial sale under 

this act. If more than one party agrees to pay the minimum 

price set by the court, the court shall direct the [tax claim] 

bureau to conduct an auction-style bid of the property 

among the parties to the proceedings. If only one party 

agrees to pay the minimum price set by the court, the 

bureau shall sell the property to that party without the 

necessity of an auction.

72 P.S. § 5860.613(a) (emphasis added). As we have held in the past, a court of 

common pleas has broad discretion in this type of situation, and “should look at all 
6

the circumstances to determine whether to approve or disapprove the sale as it deems 

just and proper.” Fieg v. Somerset Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 658 A.2d 476, 479 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1995) (emphasis in original).4 That is precisely what Common Pleas did in 

this instance, as it explained at length in its opinion:

As required, [Common Pleas] considered all factors 

presented by all people present at the [May 23, 2022] 

hearing. [Common Pleas] is sympathetic [sic] with 

[Ordaz] Moreno that she has saved money for a significant 

time to purchase the [P]roperty. [Common Pleas] is also 

sympathetic [sic] with [Ordaz] Moreno that [her] 

relationship [with Padisak] appears to be hostile. 

However, those are not the only factors to be considered. 

The amount of delinquent taxes owed on the [P]roperty is 

$1,580.73; [Ordaz] Moreno’s bid will not cover even onethird of the amount owed to the tax authorities. 

Additionally, the . . . Bureau agreed [at the hearing] that 

this is a situation where [it] would request an a[u]ction 

because [Ordaz Moreno’s] original bid did not fully cover 

the delinquent amount. The . . . [Bureau] further posited 

that [Ordaz Moreno’s] bid did not equal the fair market 

value of the [P]roperty because there was an offer [from 

Padisak] to pay an amount higher than the accepted bid. 

The ability of [Clearfield] County to be reimbursed a 

higher amount of the delinquent taxes was an additional 

factor that was taken into account when [Common Pleas] 

made its determination.

Common Pleas Op. at 4-5. This is exactly the kind of reasoned determination that is 

required by Section 613(a) of RETSL, and which represents a valid and thoughtful 

exercise of a court of common pleas’ discretionary authority. Accordingly, we have 

4 As we explained in Fieg, a court may even “disapprove [a] private tax sale . . . where the 

[private party’s] bid equals the upset price and . . . though none of the taxing authorities object[,]” 

as long as “the circumstances warrant it.” 658 A.2d at 478-79.
7

no basis to conclude that Common Pleas abused its discretion or committed an error 

of law when granting the Petition to Disapprove.5

III. Conclusion

In keeping with the foregoing analysis, we affirm Common Pleas’ May 31, 

2022 order.

____________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

5 We note that there is no evidence in the record establishing that either Ordaz Moreno or 

Padisak agreed to pay at least $600 for the Property, i.e., the minimum bid amount set by Common 

Pleas for the private auction. However, as none of the parties saw fit to challenge Common Pleas’ 

May 31, 2022 order on that basis, we will not reach the question of whether it was proper under 

Section 613(a) of RETSL for Common Pleas to direct that the auction be held.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Tax Parcel No. :

1030-K13-683-00008 :

: No. 574 C.D. 2022

:

Appeal of: Laura E. Ordaz Moreno :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2023, it is hereby ORDERED that the 

Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County’s May 31, 2022 order is AFFIRMED. 

____________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge