Court Opinion

ID: 9388285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 15:08:04.229649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:19.310344
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Petition of Tax Claim Bureau-:
Judicial Sale                       :
                                    : No. 821 C.D. 2021
Appeal of: Seneca Leandro View, LLC : Submitted: June 24, 2022

BEFORE:       HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
              HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
              HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WOJCIK                                                   FILED: April 20, 2023

              Seneca Leandro View, LLC (Purchaser) appeals the order of the Greene
County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) granting reconsideration and granting
the petition of Eron Wiles (Owner) to set aside the tax sale of Tax Parcel 2-04-126
located at 404 East South Street, Carmichaels, PA (Property). We affirm.

                                               I.
              On September 16, 2020, the Greene County (County) Tax Claim
Bureau (Bureau) conducted an annual upset sale of properties with delinquent taxes,
including the Property at issue herein. Purchaser was the successful bidder at the
sale.
              On October 7, 2020, Owner filed an Exception and Objection to the
sale in the trial court.1 See Reproduced Record (RR) at 9a-13a. On November 12,

        1
         Section 607(c) and (d) of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law (Law), Act of July 7, 1947, P.L.
1368, as amended, 72 P.S. §5860.607(c) and (d), states, in relevant part:
(Footnote continued on next page…)
2020, Owner filed an Amended Exception and Objection in which she alleged, inter
alia, that she does not reside at the Property, and had previously notified the Bureau
of her new address at 324 South Pine Street, Carmichaels, PA. Id. at 16a.2 She
asserted that despite this notification, the Bureau continued to mail information to
the Property address and, unbeknownst to her, that the Property was offered for sale
for unpaid taxes for the 2019 tax year. Id.
                 Owner claimed that she did not receive the notice of the sale as required
by Section 602(e) of the Law.3 See RR at 16a. Owner also alleged that she “made
payments in excess of $1,800.00 [in 2020] on the delinquent taxes for the home,”
and that “[t]he [trial] court should set aside the sale as it was performed illegally and
in violation of [her] rights as set forth by [Section 601 of the Law,4]et seq.[,] and the
Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.” Id. at 17a.

                 (c) In case no objections or exceptions are filed to any such sale
                 within thirty (30) days after the court has made a confirmation nisi,
                 a decree of absolute confirmation shall be entered as of course by
                 the prothonotary.

                 (d) Any objections or exceptions to such a sale may question the
                 regularity or legality of the proceedings of the bureau in respect to
                 such sale, but may not raise the legality of the taxes on which the
                 sale was held, of the return by the tax collector to the bureau or of
                 the claim entered.

       2
         The trial court “clarifie[d] to the record that the physical street address [wa]s the reason
for the amendment.” RR at 21a.

       3
         72 P.S. §5860.602(e). Specifically, Owner alleged that she never signed for the certified-
mail notice of the sale required by Section 602(e)(1) of the Law; she never received the First Class
mail notice as required by Section 602(e)(2) of the Law; and the Property was not posted for the
10 days prior to the sale as required by Section 602(e)(3) of the Law. See id. at 17a.

       4
           72 P.S. §5860.601. Section 601(a)(1) of the Law states, in pertinent part:

(Footnote continued on next page…)
                                                  2
              On December 1, 2020, a hearing was scheduled to consider Owner’s
Amended Exception and Objection. RR at 27a. At the hearing, Owner “indicate[d]
that [she is] able to pay the taxes in full . . . .” Id. However, all of the parties agreed
that Purchaser was not notified of the hearing. Id. As a result, the trial court directed
the Bureau to notify Purchaser of Owner’s Amended Exception and Objection, and
issued a Rule to Show Cause upon Purchaser “why the sale should not be voided
upon [Owner’s] payment of all costs, fees and taxes . . . .” Id. at 27a-28a.

              (1) The bureau shall sell the property if all of the following are met:

              (i) A tax claim has become absolute.

              (ii) The property has not been discharged from the tax claim nor
              removed from the sale under [S]ection 603 . . . and a sale of the
              property has not been stayed by agreement under this article.

              (iii) The property is not in the possession of the sequester.

72 P.S. §5860.601(a)(1).

       In turn, Section 603 of the Law provides, in relevant part:

              Any owner . . . may, at the option of the bureau, prior to the actual
              sale, . . . enter 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 and the interest and costs on the
              taxes returned to date, as provided by this [Law], and agreeing
              therein to pay the balance of said claims and judgments and the
              interest and costs thereon in not more than three (3) instalments all
              within one (1) year of the date of said agreement, the agreement to
              specify the dates on or before which each instalment shall be paid,
              and the amount of each instalment. So long as said agreement is
              being fully complied with by the taxpayer, the sale of the property
              covered by the agreement shall be stayed.

72 P.S. §5860.603.
                                                 3
             On December 31, 2020, Purchaser filed a Petition to Intervene in the
proceedings, and an Answer to the Amended Exception and Objection filed by
Owner. RR at 30a-41a, 42a-48a. Accordingly, on January 8, 2021, the trial court
issued a Consent Order noting Purchaser’s intervention, cancelling the Rule, and
scheduling a hearing for February 2, 2021. Id. at 50.
             At the February 2, 2021 hearing, Sue Ellen Kingan, the County’s
Director of Tax Claim, testified, in relevant part, that the Property was exposed for
sale on September 16, 2020, for the delinquent taxes owed for the 2018 and 2019
tax years. RR at 160a. She stated that Purchaser paid the upset sale price of
$4,263.28. Id. at 160a, 169a.
             Kingan outlined the notice process implemented by the Bureau to
conform to the Law’s notice, publication, and posting requirements. RR at 160a-
62a, 163a-70a. She testified that prior to the Property’s posting, in January of 2020,
Owner called her on the telephone and indicated that the Bureau’s initial notice of
delinquent taxes had not been received. Id. at 175a-76a. Nevertheless, after the
telephone call, Owner made payments on the delinquent taxes, ultimately paying the
entire delinquent amount. Id. at 178a-79a, 215a.
             Kingan identified Owner’s Exhibit C, a copy of the Bureau’s Real
Estate Tax Lien Certificate (Certificate), listing the taxes owed on the Property and
the payments that Owner made. RR at 180a, 274a-76a. Kingan acknowledged that
the Certificate had refreshed her recollection regarding Owner’s partial payment of
the delinquent taxes prior to the upset sale. Id. at 180a.
             The Certificate shows that at the time of the January 2020 telephone
call, Owner owed $1,346.87 for the 2017 tax year; $1,322.78 for the 2018 tax year;
and $1,102.53 for the 2019 tax year. RR at 275a-76a. The Certificate also shows

                                           4
that to satisfy the taxes for the 2017 tax year, Owner made a payment of $250.00 on
January 29, 2020; a payment of $350.00 on February 4, 2020; a payment of $238.93
on March 12, 2020; and a payment of $507.94 on September 1, 2020. Id. at 275a.
Because the total delinquent taxes for the 2017 tax year were paid, an additional
$492.06 that Owner paid on September 1, 2020, was applied to the delinquent taxes
due for the 2018 tax year. Id. at 184a, 275a.
             Owner also testified at the trial court’s February 2, 2021 hearing, stating
that she spoke with Kingan in January 2020, and notified Kingan that she had moved
down the road from the Property. RR at 210a. She testified that her tenant for the
Property signed the certified letter as required by the Law, but her tenant did not give
the letter to her. Id. at 216a. She stated that she called Kingan after she became
aware that her property had been posted for sale in September 2019. Id.
             Owner testified that she spoke to Kingan about making payments on
the delinquent taxes, but she did not enter into an installment agreement with the
Bureau to pay the delinquent taxes. RR at 216a-17a. She did not know that an
installment agreement with the Bureau was an option, even though Kingan told her
that it would be fine to make payments on the total due. Id. at 217a, 222a. She stated
that she made another payment after she saw that the Property was posted in August
2020, and she removed the placard. Id. at 219a-21a, 225a.
             Specifically, Owner testified as follows regarding the agreement that
she struck with Kingan in January 2020, to make payments on the delinquent taxes:

             Q:     What was that agreement?

             A:     Well, I advised Ms. Kingan of my -- my late
             notification of the information. I had received basically a
             picture message from a friend of mine and I explained to
             her that I wanted to get the balance satisfied as soon as I
             could and that I would be making payments. She said that
                                           5
             would be fine. There was no indication of a particular
             amount or particular payment date. There was nothing --
             she didn’t advise me that I had to make a certain balance
             made by a certain date or a certain monthly payment
             amount just that it needed to be satisfied.

                                         ***

             Q:      Right but you saw the posting which -- which
             specifically told you that if you didn’t pay everything off
             in full it was going to be sold in September, correct?

             A:     It also stated that payments --

             Q:     Answer my question, please.

             A:    Yes. And it also stated that payments could be
             made.

             Q:     Right.

             A:     And I have been making payments.

             Q:     Right but you had -- you didn’t -- you did not make
             those payments in full prior to the date of that sale, correct?

             A:     Correct.
RR at 226a, 227a-28a.
             At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found as fact that: (1)
the certified mail delivery requirement under Section 602(e)(1) of the Law was not
perfected on Owner; (2) the Bureau did not satisfy its duty under Section 607(a) of
making additional notification efforts; and (3) based on Owner’s testimony, she had
actual notice of the September 16, 2020 upset sale. RR at 232a-33a. Accordingly,
on February 4, 2021, the trial court entered an order incorporating these factual
findings, and directing the parties to file a memorandum of law or brief in support
of their respective positions regarding the validity of the Property’s tax sale. See id.

                                           6
at 51a-52a. The trial court stated: “Thereafter, the [c]ourt will make a determination
based [on] the law and apply [it] to the facts as we have determined them to be to
this date.” Id. at 52a.
             On February 16, 2021, Purchaser filed a brief outlining the Law’s notice
requirements and how they had been satisfied by the Bureau in this case. See RR at
62a-64a. Purchaser argued, inter alia, that “[a]s a non-occupant of the Property,
[Owner] was afforded more procedural protection than the law requires.” Id. at 64a.
Moreover, Purchaser claimed,

             assuming, arguendo, that there were any defects in the
             Bureau’s satisfaction of the notice requirements, where a
             property is not owner-occupied and the owner has actual
             notice of the tax sale, as [Owner] did, “a tax claim bureau’s
             failure to satisfy the statutory notice requirements of
             [S]ection 602 of the Law, 72 P.S. §5860.602, does not
             invalidate a tax sale where the property owner’s actual
             notice obviated due process concerns.”
Id. at 64a-65a (citation omitted). On February 22, 2021, the Bureau filed Purchaser’s
brief as its own. See id. at 68a-77a.
             That same day, Owner filed a Memorandum in support of the Amended
Exception and Objection. See RR at 79a-91a. Owner argued that the Bureau did
not comply with all of the Law’s notice requirements because the Bureau failed to:
(1) notify her of her right to enter into a written agreement pursuant to Section 603;
(2) establish that the language of its notices was in strict compliance with the Law’s
requirements; and (3) establish that its publication in the County Legal Journal was
done within 30 days before the sale. Id. at 81a.
             With respect to her first claim, Owner noted that in January 2020, she
owed a total of $3,403.58 for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 tax years. RR at 81a-82a.
She explained that she paid $1,800.00 in delinquent taxes, or roughly 53% of the

                                          7
taxes owed, in the 2020 calendar year alone. Id. She asserted that “[a]t no point was
she offered or notified of the fact that she had qualified for a payment plan under
[Section 603 of the Law,] 72 P.S. §5860.603.” Id. at 82a. As Owner explained:

              [S]he surely would have reduced, to writing, a payment
              plan in which she was already ostensibly engaged, even if
              informal. The [L]aw places a duty on the [Bureau] to put
              forward this right to a property owner. This is an
              affirmative duty, meaning that the [Bureau] must do it.
              This was not done. To permit the sale to go through,
              without finding that the [Bureau] inquired whether
              [Owner] desires a payment plan to an owner whose
              payments exceed 50% of the delinquent taxes due would
              constitute a deprivation of the due process rights of
              [Owner]. When the payments in excess of 50% due were
              accepted by the Bureau, this duty was cemented. The duty
              was not fulfilled. For this reason, the [c]ourt must
              overturn the sale.
Id. at 83a.
              Subsequently, on April 22, 2021, the trial court issued an order denying
Owner’s Amended Exception and Objection. See RR at 99a-101a. The trial court
observed that Owner “had actual notice of the posted sign and the date of sale and
upset price,” and “that actual notice is sufficient such that it defeats any failure of
the [Bureau] to strictly abide by the [L]aw[.]” Id. at 101a. As a result, the trial court
concluded that “the actual notice provided to [Owner] is such that the request of
[Owner] to upset the sale is now DENIED.” Id.
              That same day, Owner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asking the
trial court to enter an order overturning the Property’s upset tax sale. See RR at
102a-05a. In the Motion, Owner alleged, inter alia, that: (1) the trial court failed to
make any findings regarding Owner’s payment of over 25% of the taxes due, and
the Bureau’s failure to offer a payment plan option in spite of the affirmative duty

                                           8
to do so under Section 603 of the Law; (2) the trial court erred in finding that actual
notice eliminates the Bureau’s duty under Section 603; and (3) in both Darden v.
Montgomery County Tax Claim Bureau, 629 A.2d 321 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993), and In
re Sale by Tax Claim Bureau of Bedford County, 112 A.3d 685 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015),
this Court set aside the tax sales under Section 603 where, as here, the owners had
actual notice of the sale, paid in excess of 25% of the amount due, and were not
offered the right to participate in a payment plan. See id. at 103a-04a.
             On April 29, 2021, the trial court issued an order granting
reconsideration of its April 22, 2021 order, and directing the Bureau and Purchaser
“to file any responsive pleadings within thirty (30) days of this Order,” and
“thereafter, the [c]ourt shall make a ruling on the merits of the Motion within a
reasonable time.” RR at 106a.
             Accordingly, on May 17, 2021, Purchaser filed a Response in
Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration (Response).             RR at 92a-98a.
Purchaser argued, inter alia, that: (1) Section 603 is discretionary and does not
provide an absolute duty requiring the Bureau to enter into a payment plan; (2) both
Darden and Bedford County are distinguishable because they involved owner-
occupied residential properties and Owner leases out the Property herein to tenants;
(3) the same level of due process owed an owner-occupant is not owed a commercial
landlord such as Owner; and (4) a violation of the strict formalities of the Law’s
notice requirements will not void a tax sale where a property owner does not occupy
the premises and has actual notice before a tax sale. Id. at 92a-95a.
             Quite importantly, however, in its Response, Purchaser does not assert
that Owner has waived any claim under Section 603 based on her failure to raise it
at any prior point in the proceedings, or that Section 603 does not apply because

                                          9
Owner failed to pay 25% of the delinquent taxes owed on the Property. See RR at
92a-95a.5 In fact, Purchaser specifically admitted in its Response that Owner “had
paid in excess of 25% of the due taxes and w[as] not offered the right to participate
in a payment plan.” Id. at 93a.
                Ultimately, on June 29, 2021, the trial court issued an order granting
Owner’s Motion and granting Owner’s Amended Exception and Objection. See RR
at 111a-14a. In relevant part, the trial court explained:

                Once Owner paid 25%, “the [Bureau] had an affirmative
                duty to advise [her] of her option to enter into an
                installment payment plan under Section 603 of the [Law],
                72 P.S. §5860.603.” [Bedford County, 112 A.3d at 688].
                The Commonwealth Court further noted in [Bedford
                County] that “[t]his Court has repeatedly held that where
                an owner has paid at least [25%] of the taxes due, the tax
                authority is required to inform the owner of the option to
                enter into an installment agreement and that a failure to do
                so is a violation of the owner’s due process rights.” Id.
Id. at 113a-14a. The trial court concluded that “[the Bureau’s] failure to advise
Owner of an installment agreement is dispositive . . .,” and granted the requested
relief. Id. at 114a. Purchaser then filed this timely appeal of the trial court’s order.6

       5
        Rather, Purchaser first raised the claim of Owner’s waiver in the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal (Statement) that Purchaser filed in the trial court on
August 17, 2021. See RR at 142a-43a.

       6
           As this Court has explained:

                 “Our scope of review in tax sale cases is limited to determining
                whether the trial court abused its discretion, rendered a decision with
                a lack of supporting evidence, or clearly erred as a matter of law.”
                Plank v. Monroe County Tax Claim Bureau, 735 A.2d 178, 181 n.6
                (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). The trial court is the finder of fact and “has
                exclusive authority to weigh the evidence, make credibility
                determinations and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence
(Footnote continued on next page…)
                                                 10
                                               II.
              On appeal, Purchaser claims that:             (1) Owner waived her claim
regarding the application of Section 603 of the Law by failing to raise it at any time
before the trial court issued its April 22, 2021 order denying Owner’s Amended
Exception and Objection; (2) the trial court erred in applying Section 603 of the Law
because Owner failed to pay at least 25% of the tax deficiency; and (3) the trial court
abused its discretion in holding that Section 603 required the Bureau to offer Owner
a payment plan for the delinquent taxes.

                                              III.
              Purchaser first claims that Owner waived her Section 603 claim by
failing to raise it at any time before the trial court issued its initial April 22, 2021
order denying her Amended Exception and Objection. However, because Purchaser
failed to raise this claim of waiver at the first opportunity before the trial court, and
the trial court addressed Owner’s Section 603 claim on the merits below, Purchaser
has waived this waiver argument for purposes of the instant appeal. See, e.g.,
McGuire on behalf of Neidig v. City of Pittsburgh, 250 A.3d 516, 526 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2021), aff’d, 285 A.3d 887 (Pa. 2022) (“Because [the appellant] did not argue to the
trial court that the City’s failure to raise the standing issue in preliminary objections
or new matter constituted waiver, [the appellant] waived that issue and may not now

              presented.” In re: Sale of Real Estate by Lackawanna County Tax
              Claim Bureau (Appeal of Yankowski), 986 A.2d 213, 216 (Pa.
              Cmwlth. 2009).

In re Monroe County Tax Claim Bureau, 91 A.3d 265, 269 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). If a “trial
court’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence in the record, this Court may not disturb
those findings on appeal.” Smith v. Tax Claim Bureau of Pike County, 834 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2003) (citation omitted).
                                               11
argue it before this Court.”); see also In re: Oren, 159 A.3d 1023, 1026 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2017) (“However, [the a]ppellant indeed raises his first issue for the first time in his
[Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(b) [S]tatement. As such, [the a]ppellant waived his first issue, and
we cannot address it. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).[7]”); Pennsylvania Independent Waste
Haulers Association v. Township of Lower Merion, 872 A.2d 224, 228 n.16 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2005) (“[A]lthough the severance issue was not raised by the Township
before the trial court, the [appellant] does not argue that this issue has been waived.
As a result, the [appellant] has waived any potential waiver of the issue . . . .”)
(citation omitted).
              Moreover, even if Purchaser’s waiver claim has not in itself been
waived, this claim is belied by the original record of this case. As outlined above,
Owner raised her Section 603 claim in the Amended Exception and Objection; at the
February 2, 2021 hearing before the trial court; and in her February 22, 2021
Memorandum that she filed in support of her Amended Exception and Objection
long before the trial court issued its April 22, 2021 order. In short, Purchaser’s
assertion of error in this regard is patently without merit.

                                              IV.
              Purchaser next claims that the trial court erred in applying Section 603
of the Law because Owner failed to pay at least 25% of the tax deficiency. However,
as indicated above, in its Response in Opposition to Owner’s Motion for
Reconsideration, Purchaser does not assert that Section 603 does not apply because
Owner failed to pay 25% of the delinquent taxes owed on the Property. See RR at
92a-95a. In fact, Purchaser specifically admitted in its Response that Owner “had

       7
          Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) states: “Issues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal.”
                                               12
paid in excess of 25% of the due taxes and w[as] not offered the right to participate
in a payment plan.” Id. at 93a. Thus, Purchaser has also waived this claim for
purposes of the instant appeal.             See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); Arnold v. Workers’
Compensation Appeal Board (Lacour Painting, Inc.), 110 A.3d 1063, 1071 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2015) (“Our courts permit a litigant to make new arguments on appeal in
support of a preserved issue . . . but do not permit a party to advance an entirely new
and different theory of relief for the first time on appeal.”) (citations omitted).
               Moreover, the Bureau’s Certificate that was admitted at the hearing,
shows that at the time of the January 2020 telephone call between Owner and
Kingan, Owner owed $1,346.87 for the 2017 tax year; $1,322.78 for the 2018 tax
year; and $1,102.53 for the 2019 tax year. RR at 275a-76a. The Certificate also
shows that to satisfy the taxes for the 2017 tax year, Owner made a payment of
$250.00 on January 29, 2020; a payment of $350.00 on February 4, 2020; a payment
of $238.93 on March 12, 2020; and a payment of $507.94 on September 1, 2020. Id.
at 275a. As indicated, the additional $492.06 that Owner paid on September 1, 2020,
was applied to the delinquent taxes due for the 2018 tax year. Id. at 184a, 275a.
Thus, Owner paid well over 25% of the delinquent taxes owed for the 2017, 2018,
and 2019 tax years, and Purchaser’s claim is without merit.

                                                V.
               Finally, Purchaser claims that the trial court abused its discretion8 in
holding that Section 603 required the Bureau to offer Owner a payment plan for the
delinquent taxes. Specifically, Purchaser contends that the payment plan provisions

       8
         An abuse of discretion is shown where the trial court misapplies the law or its decision is
manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, or was motivated by partiality. James
Corporation v. North Allegheny School District, 938 A.2d 474, 483 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
                                                13
of Section 603 are solely at the Bureau’s discretion, and that there is no affirmative
duty to offer such a plan to Owner, who is not an owner-occupant of the Property.
             However, “[t]his court has repeatedly held that where an owner has paid
at least 25% of the taxes due, the tax authority is required to inform the owner of the
option to enter into an installment agreement and that a failure to do so is a violation
of the owner’s due process rights. Reilly v. Susquehanna [County] Tax Claim
Bureau, 904 A.2d 49, 53 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006); York v. Roach, [639 A.2d 1291 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1994)]; Darden[, 629 A.2d at 323-24].” Moore v. Keller, 98 A.3d 1, 5 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2014) (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to Purchaser’s assertion, the
payment plan provisions of Section 603 of the Law must be discussed as a
component of due process, and not at the Bureau’s discretion.
             In addition, Purchaser’s assertion that Section 603’s payment plan
provisions are only applicable to owner-occupants is likewise without merit. Indeed,
as this Court has recently explained:

             In [Reilly], a taxpayer facing an imminent tax sale
             contacted the tax claim bureau to request an installment
             payment plan, and the bureau rejected that request
             pursuant to an internal policy allowing such plans only
             when the owner resided on the property. Reilly, 904 A.2d
             at 50. This Court cited the familiar principle discussed
             above: “Where a property owner pays at least twenty-five
             percent of the taxes owed and makes a prima facie
             showing of qualifying for a stay under [S]ection 603 of the
             [Law], a taxing authority has an affirmative duty to inquire
             whether the owner desires to enter into an installment
             agreement . . . .” Id. at 53. The taxpayer had not paid the
             requisite 25% of the delinquent taxes, but, this Court
             noted, she and her counsel “were specifically informed
             that a partial payment would not be accepted if tendered”
             due to the bureau’s internal policy. Id. Reviewing
             [S]ection 603, this Court found “nothing in that section
             [that] limits the possibility of a payment plan only to

                                          14
               owner-occupied property.” Id. at 54. Because the
               bureau’s policy reflected a misapplication of the statute
               and the addition of a requirement not present therein, we
               concluded that it was erroneous for the bureau to reject the
               taxpayer’s offer of partial payment and her request for a
               payment plan. Id.
In Re Consolidated Return of Tax Claim Bureau of Indiana County from September
16, 2019 Upset Sale for Delinquent Taxes, 250 A.3d 508, 515 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal
denied, 264 A.3d 337 (Pa. 2021). In short, we will not accede to Purchaser’s request
to reconsider the foregoing binding precedent,9 and the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in holding that Section 603 required the Bureau to offer Owner a payment
plan for the delinquent taxes.
               Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

                                             MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

       9
         See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Department of Insurance,
720 A.2d 1071, 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998), aff’d, 747 A.2d 355 (Pa. 2000) (“Stare decisis binds us
to follow decisions of our own court until they are either overruled or compelling reasons persuade
us otherwise.”).
                                               15
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Petition of Tax Claim Bureau-:
Judicial Sale                       :
                                    : No. 821 C.D. 2021
Appeal of: Seneca Leandro View, LLC :

                                  ORDER

            AND NOW, this 20th day of April, 2023, the order of the Greene
County Court of Common Pleas dated June 29, 2021, is AFFIRMED.

                                       __________________________________
                                       MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge