Court Opinion

ID: 9892093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 15:10:57.484889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:07.674241
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Upset Sale, Tax Claim Bureau  :
of Tioga County Control No. 00014306 :
(Joleen George)                      :
                                     :             No. 908 C.D. 2022
Appeal of: Joleen R. George          :             Submitted: September 11, 2023

BEFORE:       HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
              HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
              HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON                            FILED: October 20, 2023

              Joleen R. George (Appellant) appeals the July 21, 2022 order (Trial
Court Order) of the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County (Trial Court)
overruling Appellant’s Amended Objections/Exceptions to Tax Sale Held
September 24, 2021. Upon review, we affirm.

                       I. Background and Procedural Posture
              On September 24, 2021, the Tioga County Tax Claim Bureau (Bureau)
conducted an upset tax sale of properties within Tioga County with delinquent 2019
real estate taxes (Upset Sale) at which Appellant’s mobile home located at 1097 Pitts
Road, Mansfield (Property),1 was sold. Thereafter, Appellant filed objections to the

       1
        The parcel of land on which the Property is situated is a tract of approximately 260-290
acres owned jointly by Appellant, her mother, and her sister. See Notes of Testimony, April 28,
2022 (N.T. 4/28/2022) at 30; Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 154a; see also Application for
Upset Sale followed by amendments to the objections (collectively, Amended
Objections),2 in which Appellant claimed that the Bureau failed to comply with the
notice requirements of Section 602 of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law (RETSL),3 72
P.S. § 5860.602, in that required notices were sent to the incorrect address and her
signature on the return receipt was a forgery. See Amended Objections, R.R. at 8a-
9a. The Trial Court conducted a hearing on the Amended Objections on April 28,
2022. See Notes of Testimony, April 28, 2022 (N.T. 4/28/2022), R.R. at 122a-63a.
On July 21, 2022, the Trial Court entered an order overruling the Amended
Objections. See Trial Court Order, R.R. at 115a. The instant appeal followed.

                                            II. Issues
                On appeal,4 Appellant claims that the Trial Court erred by refusing to
set the Upset Sale aside where the Bureau sent the statutorily required notices to an
address where Appellant no longer received mail, the first statutorily required notice

Homestead, R.R. at 114a. At the time of the Upset Sale, Appellant was the title owner of the
Property. See Report of Title For Real Estate, R.R. at 78a.
       2
         Although the Trial Court did not file the Decree Nisi regarding the Upset Sale in this
matter until November 17, 2021, Appellant originally filed her “Objections/Exemptions to Tax
Sale Held September 24, 2021” (Objections) on October 28, 2021, and her “Amended
Objections/Exceptions to Tax Sale Held September 24, 2021” (Amended Objections) on
November 8, 2021. See Decree Nisi, R.R. at 7a; Objections, R.R. at 3a-6a; Amended Objections,
R.R. at 8a-12a. The Tioga County Tax Claim Bureau (Bureau) filed its “Answer to Amended
Objections/Exceptions to Tax Sale Held September 24, 2021” (Answer) on February 25, 2022.
See Answer, R.R. at 12a-44a.
       3
           Act of July 7, 1947, P.L. 1368, as amended, 72 P.S. §§ 5860.101-5860.803.
       4
         “Our review is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, clearly
erred as a matter of law, or rendered a decision unsupported by the evidence.” In re 1999 Upset
Sale of Real Est., 811 A.2d 85, 87 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).

                                                 2
was signed for by Appellant’s mother, and Appellant’s signature on the second
statutorily required notice was allegedly forged. See Appellant’s Br. at 4, 13-24.

                                         III. Discussion
               Initially, we note that “[t]he purpose of tax sales is not to strip the
taxpayer of [her] property but to insure the collection of taxes.” Husak v. Fayette
Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 61 A.3d 302, 312 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). The property owner
notice provisions of Section 602 of the RETSL, 72 P.S. § 5860.602,5 are at issue in
the instant matter. Regarding Section 602 of the RETSL, this Court has explained:

      5
          Section 602 of the RETSL provides, in pertinent part:

               (a) At least thirty (30) days prior to any scheduled sale the bureau
               shall give notice thereof, not less than once in two (2) newspapers
               of general circulation in the county, if so many are published therein,
               and once in the legal journal, if any, designated by the court for the
               publication of legal notices. Such notice shall set forth (1) the
               purposes of such sale, (2) the time of such sale, (3) the place of such
               sale, (4) the terms of the sale including the approximate upset price,
               (5) the descriptions of the properties to be sold as stated in the claims
               entered and the name of the owner.

               (b) Where the owner is unknown and has been unknown for a period
               of not less than five years, the name of the owner need not be
               included in such description.

               (c) The description may be given intelligible abbreviations.

               (d) Such published notice shall be addressed to the “owners of
               properties described in this notice and to all persons having liens,
               judgments or municipal or other claims against such properties.”

               (e) In addition to such publications, similar notice of the sale shall
               also be given by the bureau as follows:

               (1) At 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
               In all tax sale cases, the tax claim bureau has the burden of
               proving compliance with the statutory notice provisions.
               Section 602 requires three different forms of notice to
               property owners prior to an upset tax sale: publication,
               posting, and mail. If any of the three types of notice is
               defective, the tax sale is void. Notwithstanding our
               mandate to strictly construe the notice provisions of the
               law, the notice requirements of Section 602 of the
               [RETSL] are not an end in themselves, but are rather
               intended to ensure a property owner receives actual notice
               that his or her property is about to be sold due to a tax
               delinquency. However, 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.

               (2) If return receipt is not received from each owner pursuant to the
               provisions of clause (1), then, at least ten (10) days before the date
               of the sale, 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 by
               virtue of the knowledge and information possessed by the bureau,
               by the tax collector for the taxing district making the return and by
               the county office responsible for assessments and revisions of taxes.
               It shall be the duty of the bureau to determine the last post office
               address known to said collector and county assessment office.

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

               (f) The published notice, the mail notice and the posted notice shall
               each state that the sale of any property may, at the option of the
               bureau, be stayed if the owner thereof or any lien creditor of the
               owner on or before the actual sale enters into an agreement with the
               bureau to pay the taxes in instalments, in the manner provided by
               this act.

72 P.S. § 5860.602(a)-(f).

                                                 4
In re Consol. Reps. & Return by Tax Claims Bureau of Northumberland Cnty. of
Props. (Appeal of Neff), 132 A.3d 637, 644-45 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (internal
citations, footnote, and quotation mark omitted). Accordingly, where property is to
be exposed to an upset tax sale, Section 602 of the RETSL requires that the Bureau
must first provide the property owner notice by publication, mail, and posting. 72
P.S. § 5860.602. “If any method of notice is defective, the tax sale is void.” Krawec
v. Carbon Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 842 A.2d 520, 523 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).6
               Here, at the hearing on the Amended Objections, the Bureau presented
the testimony of Joshua Zeyn, the Director of Tax Claims and Chief Assessor of
Tioga County,7 whose testimony established the following. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at
4-28; R.R. at 128a-52a. On February 1, 2020, the Bureau sent a Notice of Return
and Claim, which is a delinquent tax notice,8 regarding the Property’s unpaid 2019
real estate taxes (February 2020 Notice of Return and Claim) via certified mail to
Appellant at 1097 Pitts Road, Mansfield, the Property’s mailing address from the

       6
         We note that, where a property subject to an upset sale is occupied by the property owner,
Section 601(a)(3) of the RETSL requires an additional notice of the tax sale to be personally served
on the owner-occupant. See 72 P.S. § 5860.601(a)(3). As there is no allegation that Appellant
was an owner-occupier of the Property herein, the additional notice requirement of Section
601(a)(3) plays no part in the instant matter.
       7
         Mr. Zeyn has been the Bureau’s Chief Assessor since 2020, having acted as Assistant
Assessor for the 10 years prior. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 4; R.R. at 128a. Mr. Zeyn is responsible
for the day-to-day operations of both the Bureau and the Tioga County’s Assessment Office and
is involved in Tioga County’s tax sale process. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 4-5; R.R. at 128a-29a.
       8
         Mr. Zeyn explained that tax bills go out in March and July every calendar year and that
the previous year’s uncollected taxes are returned to the Bureau for collections starting on January
1st of the following year. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 5; R.R. at 129a. The Bureau typically sends
landowners delinquent tax notices containing tax balances and payment options at the beginning
of February of the following year. See id.

                                                 5
Bureau’s tax duplicate book9 and previously provided to the Bureau on a Mobile
Home Tax Release form transferring the Property to Appellant from Sylvia Wilcox,
Appellant’s grandmother. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 6-8; R.R. at 130a-32a. Appellant’s
mother, Lucille Vandergrift, signed for the delivery of the February 2020 Notice of
Return and Claim. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 10; R.R. at 134; see also February 2020
Notice of Return and Claim Return Receipt Verification Card, R.R. at 56a. The
Bureau has no record of any contact from Appellant after sending the February 2020
Notice of Return and Claim. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 10; R.R. at 134a.
               On November 5, 2020, the Bureau sent another notice (Open Billing
Letter), known as an open billing letter,10 to Appellant at the Property’s address,
which outlined the real estate tax balance due and payment dates and deadlines for
satisfaction thereof. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 11-12; R.R. at 135a; see also Open
Billing Letter, R.R. at 57a. In addition to the tax balance and payment information,
the Open Billing Letter also explained that eligible landowners had the option to set
up a stay of sale contract with the Bureau prior to January 1, 2021, in reference to
outstanding real estate taxes. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 11; R.R. at 135a; see also Open
Billing Letter, R.R. at 57a. Appellant was eligible to enter a stay of sale contract in
November of 2020, but the Bureau received no response in reference to the Open
Billing Letter. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 1; R.R. at 135a.

       9
         Real estate tax duplicate books are printed at the time the Bureau generates tax bills, and
are given to the tax collector, who collects taxes on behalf of the Bureau. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at
8; R.R. at 132a. The parties stipulated that Appellant’s address in the tax duplicate book in 2014
was 1097 Pitts Road, Mansfield – the address of the Property – and that the address remained the
same through 2021. See id. No previous correspondence to Appellant at that address was returned
as undeliverable, and the Bureau has no change of address form for Appellant. See N.T. 4/28/2022
at 8-9; R.R. at 132a-33a.
       10
          The RETSL does not require the Bureau to send open billing letters. See N.T. 4/28/2022
at 11; R.R. at 135a.

                                                 6
               On April 1, 2021, the Bureau sent Appellant another courtesy notice
(April 2021 Notice) not required by the RETSL that provided the updated
outstanding Property real estate tax balance. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 12; R.R. at 136a;
see also April 2021 Notice, R.R. at 58a. The April 2021 Notice gave a deadline of
May 31, 2021, for Appellant to pay the outstanding taxes in full or enter a stay of
sale contract with the Bureau. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 12; R.R. at 136a. The Bureau
received no response to the April 2021 Notice. See id.
               On July 14, 2021, the Bureau mailed, via certified mail addressed to
Appellant as owner, the statutorily required Notice of Public Tax Sale (Notice of
Sale). See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 14; R.R. at 138; see also Notice of Sale, R.R. at 68a.
The Notice of Sale listed the Upset Sale for 10:00 a.m., Friday, September 24,
2021.11 See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 14; R.R. at 138; see also Notice of Sale, R.R. at 68a.
To avoid publication of the Upset Sale,12 the Notice of Sale gave July 30, 2021, as
the date for payment in full or entry into a stay of sale contract. See N.T. 4/28/2022
at 14-15; R.R. at 138a-39a; see also Notice of Sale, R.R. at 68a. The Bureau received
back a signed return receipt verification card indicating that the Notice of Sale had
been delivered on July 19, 2021. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 15; R.R. at 139a; see also
Notice of Sale Return Receipt Verification Card, R.R. at 69a. Appellant’s signed
name appeared on the signature line of the return receipt verification card. See N.T.

       11
          The Notice of Sale listed the approximate upset price as $5,887.27. See Notice of Sale,
R.R. at 68a.
       12
           On August 26, 2021, the Bureau published the notice of the Upset Sale in the
Wellsboro/Mansfield Gazette and the Free-Press Courier of Westfield. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 13-
14; R.R. at 137a-38; see also Affidavits of Publication, R.R. at 60a-67a. The parties stipulated to
proper publication. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 14, R.R. at 138a.

                                                7
4/28/2022 at 15; R.R. at 139a; see also Notice of Sale Return Receipt Verification
Card, R.R. at 69a.
              Posting of the Property was completed on June 16, 2021, by Palmetto
Posting, a third-party posting company. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 16; R.R. at 140a; see
also Notice of Public Tax Sale posting, R.R. at 72a-73a; Palmetto Posting Field
Report (Field Report), R.R. at 71a. Although personal service is required only for
owner-occupied properties,13 a Palmetto Posting employee also attempted to
personally serve Appellant with notice of the scheduled Upset Sale on June 16, 17,
and 18, 2021, but was unsuccessful. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 16-18; R.R. at 140a-42a;
see also Field Report, R.R. at 71a.14
              On September 8, 2021, the Bureau mailed, by regular mail, a final
notice to Appellant at the Property’s address (Final Notice) regarding the scheduled
Upset Sale. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 21; R.R. at 145a; see also Final Notice, R.R. at
174a. The Final Notice again provided Appellant with a pay-by date to avoid the
Upset Sale, together with payment instructions. See id. The Final Notice was not
required by the RETSL. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 23; R.R. at 147a. The Final Notice
was not returned as undeliverable, but the Bureau received no response from
Appellant. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 21-22; R.R. at 145a-46a.
              On September 15, 2021, the Bureau left Appellant a courtesy telephone
message regarding the Upset Sale and the payment deadline to avoid the Upset Sale.

       13
          Bureau records indicate that the Property is not owner-occupied. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at
18; R.R. at 142a; see also supra n.6.
       14
          The Trial Court also accepted into evidence at the Amended Objections hearing the
deposition testimony of Palmetto Posting’s Chief Information Officer, Eugene Johnson, and
processing agent, Evelyn Laughlin, who collectively confirmed the June 16, 2021 posting of the
Property and unsuccessful attempts to personally serve notice on Appellant. See Notes of
Testimony, April 19, 2022, at 8-33; R.R. at 79a-106a.

                                               8
See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 23-24; R.R. at 147a-48a; see also Caller Comments, R.R. at
75a.
             Appellant did not respond to any of the Bureau’s notices. Accordingly,
the Property was sold at the Upset Sale on September 24, 2021. See N.T. 4/28/2022
at 24; R.R. at 148a; see also Upset Sale Sold Notice, R.R. at 76a-77a.
             Appellant also testified on her own behalf before the Trial Court at the
hearing on the Amended Objections. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 28-37; R.R. at 152a-
61a. Appellant testified that she moved out of the Property and into 661 Pitts Road
in 2015 as part of an agreement with her sister. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 30-31; R.R.
at 154a-55a. Appellant further testified to an agreement between herself and her
mother whereby the mother would pay the Property’s real estate taxes. See N.T.
4/28/2022 at 32; R.R. at 156a. Appellant asserted that her mother had abided by the
agreement until the failure to pay the taxes in 2019 occasioned the events leading to
the Upset Sale. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 32; R.R. at 156a. Appellant explained that
she did not receive the notices mailed to the Property, which would have been
received by her mother and/or sister. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 32-33; R.R. at 156a-
57a. Appellant further explained that she has had a strained relationship with her
mother and sister for years. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 32-33; R.R. at 156a-57a.
Appellant testified that the signature on the Notice of Sale was not hers and would
have instead placed thereon by her mother or sister. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 33-34;
R.R. at 157a-58a. She further explained that her mother and sister never advised her
about the Upset Sale, that she never received a telephone message about the Upset
Sale, and that she never saw the posting on the Property. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at 35-
36; R.R. at 159a-60a. Appellant conceded, however, that she never informed the

                                         9
Bureau that she was no longer receiving mail at the Property. See N.T. 4/28/2022 at
37; R.R. at 161a.
             Based on this evidence, the Trial Court found that the Bureau satisfied
the Section 602 notice requirements of mailing, publication, and posting. See Trial
Court Opinion at 1-4. The Trial Court observed that the verification from the Notice
of Sale was returned to the Bureau bearing the signature “Joleen George” in excess
of 30 days prior to the prior to the September 24, 2021, date of sale. See Trial Court
Opinion at 2. The Trial Court also noted that the Bureau was excused from the
additional mailing requirements of Section 602(e)(2), 72 P.S. § 5860.602(e)(2), by
virtue of the Notice of Sale return receipt having been returned signed, but that the
Bureau had nonetheless sent multiple other, non-required notification mailings. See
id. Additionally, the Trial Court noted that the parties had stipulated that the Bureau
complied with the RETSL’s publication requirement and further that the Bureau
properly posted the Property as required. See id. Accordingly, the Bureau complied
with the RETSL’s notification requirements prior to the Upset Sale. See id. at 4.
             We agree with the Trial Court that the Bureau fulfilled its notice
obligations under the RETSL. Section 602 of the RETSL requires the Bureau to
provide property owners with three forms of notice before an upset sale can take
place: publication, posting of the property, and mailing of notice. See 72 P.S. §
5860.602.    As discussed supra, Appellant stipulated that the Bureau properly
published the details of the Upset Sale in two different publications in accordance
with the RETSL. Additionally, Mr. Zeyn, Mr. Johnson, and Ms. Laughlin all
testified that the Property was posted on June 14, 2021, well in excess of 10 days
prior to the Upset Sale, and the Field Report entered into evidence confirmed their
testimony. Further, the Bureau mailed the Notice of Sale on July 14, 2021, well over

                                          10
30 days prior to the scheduled Upset Sale. The Notice of Sale return receipt
verification card was returned with Appellant’s signature thereon and indicating that
the Notice of Sale had been delivered on July 19, 2021, also well over the 30 days
required by the RETSL. This evidence illustrated that the Bureau complied with the
notice requirements of Section 602 of the RETSL prior to the Upset Sale. For this
reason, the Trial Court did not err by overruling the Amended Objections to the
extent they argued that the Bureau had failed to comply with the RETSL’s notice
requirements prior to the Upset Sale.
             To the extent Appellant claims that the Trial Court erred by not granting
equitable relief based on the allegation that her name was forged on the Notice of
Sale’s return receipt verification card, which forgery Appellant claimed amounts to
fraud, she is not entitled to relief. As this Court has explained, “[w]here the [tax
claim] bureau has complied with all the notice provisions of Section 602, the fact
that notice was not actually received will not defeat the sale.” In re Upset Tax Sale
Held 11/10/97, 784 A.2d 834, 837 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (quoting Kleinberger v. Tax
Claim Bureau of Lehigh County, 438 A.2d 1045, 1048 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982)) (wife
signed certified receipt for husband owner). This Court has further explained that

             [w]hen exceptions are filed to a tax sale, the burden of
             proof is on the tax claim bureau to prove compliance with
             the notice requirements of the [RETSL]. This does not,
             however, require proof that the property owner actually
             signed the certified mail receipt or actually received the
             notice. Rather, the tax claim bureau must only show that it
             sent all required notices to the property owner or owners,
             not that the owner or owners actually received the notice
             of tax sale.

                                         11
FS Partners v. York Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 132 A.3d 577, 581-82 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2016) (citing 72 P.S. § 5860.602(h)15) (emphasis in original). Thus, this Court has
specifically determined that,

              where the signature on the certified mail receipt appears to
              be the signature of the owner . . . , the tax claim bureau has
              satisfied its certified mail notice obligations and the tax
              sale cannot be set aside for failure to provide certified mail
              or regular mail notice, even if the signature was not the
              actual signature of the owner . . . and the owner did not
              receive the notice and had no knowledge of the tax sale.

FS Partners, 132 A.3d at 582 (emphasis in original).
              The Trial Court here rejected Appellant’s equity claim as follows:

              Appellant asserts that [the Bureau] “. . . knew that
              Appellant’s mother was scheming to achieve sale of
              Appellant’s property at a tax sale.” Appellant also asserts
              that the mail receipt card was not signed by Appellant, but,
              instead, by her mother or sister. While [the Bureau]
              clearly bears the burden of establishing compliance with
              the [RETSL], [the Bureau] is not required to be aware of
              the dynamics of the relationships between property
              owners, such as Appellant, and their relatives. Appellant,
              in asserting a claim such as this, must present evidence to
              support her claim. In this case, Appellant argues that her
              mother and/or sister engaged in a fraud. Appellant alleges
              a forgery by someone with regard to the return receipt.
              Appellant attempts to impute knowledge of a scheme to
              [the Bureau] by reference to a telephone call received by
              [the Bureau] documented in [the Caller Comments, R.R.
              at 75a]. The entry, in full, is as follows:

       15
          Section 602(h) of the RETSL provides: “[n]o sale shall be defeated and no title to
property sold shall be invalidated because of proof that mail notice as herein required was not
received by the owner, provided such notice was given as prescribed by this section.” 72 P.S.
§ 5860.602(h).

                                              12
                  [Appellant’s mother c]alled to state that
                  [Appellant] is no longer going to pay these taxes
                  for the [P]roperty. [Appellant] has moved to
                  another house at the end of the [P]roperty.
                  [Appellant] will not sign over the title to her sister
                  Jessica. I told [Appellant’s mother that] she can
                  do a tax release and have the taxes sent in her name
                  but the title and ownership would still be under
                  [Appellant’s name]. [Appellant’s mother] said she
                  will wait for it to go to tax sale and bid on it there.
                  I told [Appellant’s mother that] she would receive
                  a bill of sale if they [sic] were the highest bidder.
                  [Appellant’s mother] said she will try to talk to
                  [Appellant] about possibly signing it over or
                  contact an attorney to see what else she can do.

              This communication does not establish a “scheme” to
              defraud Appellant, and certainly does not impute
              knowledge of any such “scheme” to [the Bureau]. Further,
              this communication predates the mailing of the challenged
              certified mail notice by one (1) year. Appellant, herself,
              acknowledged that she provided no notice that she was not
              receiving mail at the [P]roperty, to which the notices were
              sent.

Trial Court Opinion at 2-3.
              We agree that Appellant’s equity argument regarding alleged fraud
based on her mother or sister having possibly forged her signature does not entitle
Appellant to relief. As discussed supra, the Bureau complied with its notice
requirements under the RETSL, including mailing the Notice of Sale to Appellant at
least 30 days prior to the scheduled Upset Sale.16 The return receipt verification card
from the mailed Notice of Sale came back to the Bureau signed with Appellant’s

       16
         We observe that the Bureau in fact mailed the Notice of Sale more than 60 days before
the scheduled Upset Sale.
                                             13
name.    This satisfied the mailing notice requirement, regardless of whether
Appellant herself actually signed the return receipt, and even if Appellant did not
actually receive the notice and had no knowledge of the Upset Sale. See FS Partners.
Accordingly, the Trial Court did not err by overruling the Amended Objections to
the extent they sought an equitable remedy from the Trial Court based on the
purportedly forged signature on the Notice of Sale return receipt verification card.

                                  IV. Conclusion
             For the above reasons, we find no error in the Trial Court overruling
the Amended Objections.

                                       __________________________________
                                       CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

                                         14
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Upset Sale, Tax Claim Bureau  :
of Tioga County Control No. 00014306 :
(Joleen George)                      :
                                     :   No. 908 C.D. 2022
Appeal of: Joleen R. George          :

                                 ORDER

           AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 2023, the July 21, 2022 order of
the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County is AFFIRMED.

                                   __________________________________
                                   CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge