Case Name: Harold A. DONALDSON and Laura Donaldson, his wife, Appellants, v. Robert RITENOUR, Connie Ritenour Hensel, Alvin M. Chanin, and Myra Chanin, his wife, Harvey Porter and Anna C. Porter, his wife, and their respective heirs, devises executors, administrators and assigns
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1986-07-09
Citations: 354 Pa. Super. 568
Docket Number: No. 626
Parties: Harold A. DONALDSON and Laura Donaldson, his wife, Appellants, v. Robert RITENOUR, Connie Ritenour Hensel, Alvin M. Chanin, and Myra Chanin, his wife, Harvey Porter and Anna C. Porter, his wife, and their respective heirs, devises executors, administrators and assigns.
Judges: Before ROWLEY, DEL SOLE and TAMILIA, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 354
Pages: 568–575

Head Matter:
512 A.2d 686
Harold A. DONALDSON and Laura Donaldson, his wife, Appellants, v. Robert RITENOUR, Connie Ritenour Hensel, Alvin M. Chanin, and Myra Chanin, his wife, Harvey Porter and Anna C. Porter, his wife, and their respective heirs, devises executors, administrators and assigns.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Dec. 16, 1985.
Filed July 9, 1986.
Joseph E. Ferens, Uniontown, for appellants.
Daniel G. Reilly, Uniontown, for appellees.
Before ROWLEY, DEL SOLE and TAMILIA, JJ.

Opinion:
DEL SOLE, Judge:
This is an appeal from an order granting Appellees preliminary objections and dismissing Appellants' complaint without leave to amend. The complaint was filed in an action to quiet title regarding certain tax sale property. For the following reasons we transfer this case to the Commonwealth Court.
The property in question was conveyed by Appellees, Alvin M. and Myra Chanin, and Harvey and Anna C. Porter with the following terms: life estate in Robert Ritenour, at his death to his daughter, Connie Ritenour, until she reaches twenty-one, then to the grantors in fee simple absolute. On May 22, 1979 the life tenant who was in possession of the property received notice that the Fayette County Tax Claim Bureau was exposing the subject property to public sale for delinquent and unpaid taxes. Notice was not given to Connie Ritenour or to grantors, Appellees. Shortly thereafter, on June 10 of 1979 Connie Ritenour celebrated her twenty-first birthday. The tax sale was held on September 10, 1979, and in February of 1980 Mr. and Mrs. Romansky acquired title to the premises by deed of the Bureau. In October of 1983 Robert Ritenour died, and the property was subsequently conveyed by the Romanskys to Appellants in January of 1984.
At the issue in this case is whether the Bureau complied with the notice requirements of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law, Act of July 7, 1947, P.L. 1368. as amended, 72 P.S. § 5860.101 et seq. The Real Estate Tax Sale Law requires that notice of the claim and notice of the impending sale be sent to the "owner". The trial court found that the tax sale did not divest Appellees' interest in the property since they failed to receive notice of the sale. Appellants on appeal question the trial court's determination.
Upon examination, we conclude that this case involving interpretation of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law, must be transferred to the Commonwealth Court.
The Commonwealth Court has jurisdiction over:
(4)(i) . All actions or proceedings . where is drawn in question the application, interpretation or enforcement of any: . (A) statute regulating the affairs of political subdivisions, municipality and other local authorities . 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 762.
The statute in question provides for creation of a taxing claim bureau in counties of the second through the eighth classes. 72 P.S. § 5860.201. The statute also provides the Bureau with powers to collect taxes, and conduct sales of property. 72 P.S. § 5860.601. Prior to any scheduled sale the Bureau is required by statute to give notice of the sale. 72 P.S. § 5860.602. It is the interpretation of this notice requirement and its relation to the statutory definition of "owner" which are at issue in the instant case. See: 72 P.S. § 5860.102. The Commonwealth Court has repeatedly recognized its jurisdiction over this area of the law, and considered and resolved cases with similar issues. See: Kleinberger v. Tax Claim Bur. of Lehigh County, 64 Pa.Commw.Ct. 30, 438 A.2d 1045 (1982); In re Upset Sale, Tax Claim Bur. of Bucks County, 48 Pa.Commw.Ct. 435, 410 A.2d 376 (1980); Brown v. Barnes Real Estate Co., 44 Pa.Commw.Ct. 439, 404 A.2d 437 (1979); Povlow v. Brown, 12 Pa.Commw.Ct. 303, 315 A.2d 375 (1974).
Although the parties have not objected to this Court's lack of jurisdiction, we find as we did in Eldred Twp. v. Monroe County, 330 Pa.Super. 74, 478 A.2d 1357 (1984) that:
It is also true here that:
As in Commonwealth v. Sensi, supra, we believe the Commonwealth Court's greater expertise in the issues raised here make transfer to that court appropriate. Moreover, transfer to this case will prevent unnecessary confusion and lack of coordination, since Commonwealth Court will be the forum for similar cases in this . area of the law .
Osser v. City of Philadelphia, 295 Pa.Super. 447 at 449, 441 A.2d 1317 at 1318 (1982); citing Commonwealth v. Sensi, 287 Pa.Super. 452 at 454, 430 A.2d 691 at 692 (1981).
330 Pa.Super. 76, 478 A.2d 1357 at 1358.
In light of the above, this case is transferred to Commonwealth Court.
TAMILIA, J., files a dissenting opinion.