Court Opinion

ID: 9915050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 15:08:10.507336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:16:54.376449
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Sale of Tax Delinquent Property :
on October 19, 2020                    :
                                       :             No. 49 C.D. 2021
Appeal of: Richard Hovanec             :             Argued: October 10, 2023

BEFORE:        HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
               HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
               HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY                                                    FILED: January 4, 2024

               Richard Hovanec (Hovanec) appeals from the Fayette County (County)
Common Pleas Court’s (trial court) January 4, 2021 order1 granting Debra Collins’
(Collins) Exceptions to Upset Tax Sale (Tax Sale) of her property located at 1262
Connellsville Road, Lemont Furnace, North Union Township, Pennsylvania (1262
Property) (Exceptions) and her Petition to Set Aside the Tax Sale (Petition).
Essentially, Hovanec presents one issue for this Court’s review: whether the trial
court erred or abused its discretion by voiding the Tax Sale.2 After review, this Court
affirms.
               Collins lives at 1260 Connellsville Road, Lemont Furnace, North
Union Township, Pennsylvania (1260 Property). Collins also owns the adjoining

       1
          Although the trial court’s order was dated December 22, 2020, it was entered on the
docket on January 4, 2021.
        2
          In his Statement of the Questions Involved, Hovanec sets forth that the trial court erred
or abused its discretion by: (1) voiding the Tax Sale despite that the County Tax Claim Bureau
(Bureau) complied with the statutory notice requirements; (2) concluding that Collins’
misunderstanding, confusion, and oversight regarding her tax obligations established lack of actual
notice and justified voiding the Tax Sale; (3) concluding that the Bureau had a duty to help Collins
identify which taxes she had to pay to prevent the Tax Sale; and (4) applying equity to void the
Tax Sale despite the Bureau’s compliance with the law. See Hovanec Br. at 4-5. This Court
addresses Hovanec’s latter three issues as part of its analysis of the first issue.
1.87-acre 1262 Property, which she leases to the operator of a commercial auto repair
business.3 In March 2019, the County Tax Claim Bureau (Bureau) notified Collins
that she owed $809.25 for the 2018 taxes on the 1262 Property (delinquent 2018
taxes), and warned her that her failure to pay the outstanding amount could result in
the 1262 Property being sold at a tax sale. In 2018, 2019, and 2020, Collins paid the
taxes on the 1260 Property and the 1262 Property; however, because she believed
the taxes on the 1262 Property were then current, she did not pay the delinquent 2018
taxes. On July 6, 2020, the Bureau posted the 1262 Property with notice of the Tax
Sale (Posted Notice). On August 24, 2020, Collins paid $1,000.00 in person at the
Bureau office to satisfy the delinquent 2018 taxes and a portion of the 2019 taxes on
the 1260 Property, believing that she was in jeopardy of losing her home. On
September 25, 2020, the Bureau sent Collins notice 10 days in advance of the Tax
Sale (10-Day Letter). On October 19, 2020, Hovanec purchased the 1262 Property
at the Tax Sale. Thereafter, the Bureau notified Collins that the 1262 Property had
been sold at the Tax Sale (Post-Sale Notice).
               On October 20, 2020, Collins filed the Exceptions and the Petition in
the trial court. On November 10, 2020, Hovanec filed a petition to intervene, which
the trial court granted on November 13, 2020. The trial court conducted a hearing
on December 22, 2020, at which Collins and Bureau representative Sarah Friend
(Friend) testified. That same day, the trial court ruled that Collins had not received
actual notice of the Tax Sale, see Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 45a, granted the
Petition, and set aside the Tax Sale pending Collins’ payment of the delinquent 2018
taxes by December 30, 2020. Hovanec appealed to this Court.4

       3
         Collins purchased the 1262 Property on May 5, 1999, for $95,000.00. See Reproduced
Record at 9a. The 1260 Property is Collins’ designated mailing address for the 1262 Property.
       4
         This Court’s review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights or local agency
procedures were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether the findings of fact

                                                 2
              On January 21, 2021, the trial court directed Hovanec to file a Concise
Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure (Rule) 1925(b) (Rule 1925(b) Statement). Hovanec timely
filed his Rule 1925(b) Statement. On March 19, 2021, the trial court filed its opinion
pursuant to Rule 1925(a) (Rule 1925(a) Opinion).5
              Hovanec argues that the trial court erred or abused its discretion by
voiding the Tax Sale despite the Bureau’s compliance with the statutory notice
requirements. Specifically, Hovanec asserts that the trial court erred or abused its
discretion by concluding: (1) that Collins’ misunderstanding, confusion, and
oversight regarding her tax payments established lack of actual notice and justified
voiding the Tax Sale; (2) that the Bureau had a duty to help Collins identify which
taxes she had to pay to prevent the Tax Sale; and (3) that the trial court could apply
equity to void the Tax Sale despite the Bureau’s compliance with the law.
              Initially, “the collection of taxes may not be implemented without due
process of law.” Husak v. Fayette Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 61 A.3d 302, 312 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2013). This Court has explained:

              A property owner’s right to notice “prior to commencing
              with an upset tax sale [is] established pursuant to the Due
              Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
              United States [(U.S.)] Constitution[, U.S. Const. amend.
              XIV, § 1,] and by the [Real Estate Tax Sale Law
              (RETSL)].”[6] Rice v. Compro Distrib[.], Inc., 901 A.2d
              570, 574 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). The [U.S.] Supreme Court
              has held that due process is implicated in any taking of
              property for the collection of taxes, stating:
                   [P]eople must pay their taxes, and the government
                   may hold citizens accountable for tax delinquency

were unsupported by substantial evidence. See Section 754(b) of the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S.
§ 754(b).
       5
         The Bureau joined in Collins’ brief on appeal to this Court.
       6
         Act of July 7, 1947, P.L. 1368, as amended, 72 P.S. §§ 5860.101-5860.803.
                                              3
                  by taking their property. But before forcing a
                  citizen to satisfy his debt by forfeiting his property,
                  due process requires the government to provide
                  adequate notice of the impending taking.
              Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 . . . (2006). Due process
              is satisfied when the [tax claim b]ureau, before
              commencing with a tax sale, “provide[s] ‘notice
              reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to
              apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and
              afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’”
              Id. (quoting Mullane v. Cent[.] Hanover Bank & T[r.] Co.,
              339 U.S. 306 . . . (1950)).

In re Consol. Reps. & Return by the Tax Claim Bureau of Northumberland Cnty. of
Props., 132 A.3d 637, 644 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (en banc) (Appeal of Neff).
              To ensure Pennsylvania property owners are afforded proper due
process, the General Assembly enacted Section 602 of the RETSL, 72 P.S. §
5860.602, wherein it specified the forms of notice a tax claim bureau shall provide
a property owner before exposing a property to an upset tax sale.7 Section 602(e)(1)
of the RETSL requires a tax claim bureau to provide notice of a tax sale “[a]t least
thirty (30) days before the date of the sale, by [U.S.] certified mail, restricted
delivery, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to each owner as defined by [the
RETSL].” 72 P.S. § 5860.602(e)(1) (emphasis added). Section 602(a) of the RETSL
also specifies:

              At least thirty (30) days prior to any scheduled sale[,] the
              [tax claim] 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, [and] (5) the descriptions of the

       7
        Section 601(a)(3) of the RETSL, 72 P.S. § 5860.601(a)(3), sets forth additional notice
requirements for owner-occupied properties.
                                              4
             properties to be sold as stated in the claims entered and the
             name of the owner.

72 P.S. § 5860.602(a) (emphasis added). Section 602(e)(3) of the RETSL further
mandates 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) (emphasis added). The General
Assembly, through “[t]he [RETSL,] requires that advance notice of [an upset tax]
sale be given to members of the public . . . [and] each owner of the property.” In
re Upset Tax Sale of Sept. 29, 2014, 163 A.3d 1072, 1074-75 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017)
(footnote omitted; emphasis added).
             At the trial court hearing in the instant case, Friend explained that
Collins made a tax payment to the Bureau for the 1262 Property on November 29,
2018, but the check therefor reflected that it was a payment for the 2017 taxes owed,
which left $809.25 owing for the delinquent 2018 taxes on the 1262 Property. See
R.R. at 30a-31a, 55a-57a. She testified that the Bureau sent a Notice of Return and
Claim (Notice of Return) dated March 19, 2019, to Collins’ 1260 Property informing
Collins that the 1262 Property was “returned to the [Bureau] for non-payment of
taxes” and, unless the taxes, penalties, and fees were paid or exceptions filed, the
1262 Property could be sold without her consent. R.R. at 52a; see also R.R. at 29a.
Friend confirmed that Collins signed the Notice of Return’s return receipt card on
April 5, 2019, and the trial court admitted the documentation into the record. See
R.R. at 29a, 53a.
             Friend further claimed that, in June 2020, the Bureau notified Collins
by certified mail, return receipt requested, at her 1260 Property, that her failure to
pay the delinquent 2018 taxes placed the 1262 Property in danger of a public tax
sale, and instructed her to call the Bureau office for the tax payoff amount (Notice
Letter). See R.R. at 21a, 23a. The Bureau did not produce the Notice Letter or
Collins’ signed return receipt card at the hearing for admission into the record.

                                          5
             Friend also testified that, on July 6, 2020, the Bureau placed the Posted
Notice at the 1262 Property, which declared that unless Collins paid the overdue
taxes or filed exceptions, the 1262 Property would be sold at a public tax sale on
September 21, 2020. See R.R. at 21a, 24a, 28a, 49a-51a. Although the Posted Notice
reflected, inter alia, that the Tax Sale “will be published once in newspapers of
general circulation and the Fayette Legal Journal[,]” R.R. at 51a, Friend did not
testify that the Bureau published notice of the Tax Sale, and the Bureau did not
introduce proof of publication.
             Friend further stated that, on September 25, 2020, the Bureau sent the
10-Day Letter to Collins by certified mail, return receipt requested, at her 1260
Property informing her that the 1262 Property would be sold at a Tax Sale. See R.R.
at 22a, 24a, 29a-30a, 54a. The Bureau did not produce the 10-Day Letter or Collins’
signed return receipt at the hearing for admission into the record.
             Collins testified that she has owned the 1262 Property for 21 years. See
R.R. at 34a. She stated, and Friend agreed, that Collins paid the 2019 taxes due on
the 1262 Property as follows: $499.13 and $40.45 on April 26, 2019, and $1,861.30
on December 27, 2019. See R.R. at 10a, 37a-38a. Collins explained that she paid
the Bureau $600.00 on January 31, 2020, and $700.00 on February 28, 2020, in
person at the Bureau office for the 1260 Property. See R.R. at 23a, 25a. Collins
further recalled that, on June 29, 2020, she paid $666.05 in taxes on the 1262
Property. See R.R. at 38a-39a. On August 24, 2020, Collins paid $1,000.00 in
person at the Bureau office to satisfy the delinquent 2018 taxes and a portion of the
2019 taxes on the 1260 Property, believing that she was in jeopardy of losing her
home. See id. Collins declared that her failure to pay the delinquent 2018 taxes on
the 1262 Property was unintentional, as she thought she had paid them. See R.R. at
40a.

                                          6
              Collins stated that she did not see the Posted Notice at the 1262
Property, but admitted that she received the 10-Day Letter.8 See R.R. at 35a. After
the Tax Sale, Collins obtained documentation that she had owed $809.25 for the
delinquent 2018 taxes on the 1262 Property, which she claimed she could
have/would have paid if she had been aware that the 1262 Property’s 2018 taxes
remained delinquent. See R.R. at 7a, 11a, 22a, 39a-40a.
              The trial court found Collins’ testimony credible, and overturned the
Tax Sale “[b]ecause the [Bureau] failed to notify [] Collins that her payments should
go towards her [delinquent] 2018 taxes for the 1262 Property when she came into
the [Bureau o]ffice in August of 2020, [] [and] found that [] Collins did not receive
proper notice.” Rule 1925(a) Op. at 3. The trial court reasoned:

              [T]he [Bureau] may have complied with the statutory
              requirements of the [RETSL] in this case, but it failed to
              provide [] Collins with actual notice that the 1262 Property
              was in jeopardy of being sold at the 2020 [T]ax [S]ale.
              Specifically, [] Collins went to the [Bureau o]ffice on three
              separate occasions in 2020 in order to pay [the] taxes on
              her [P]roperties. The [Bureau o]ffice apparently never
              informed [] Collins while she was there that she should
              pay for her delinquent 2018 county and local taxes for the
              1262 Property. This is even more frustrating as [] Collins
              actually paid her 2019 and 2020 county and local taxes on
              the 1262 Property. Additionally, [] Collins went into the
              [Bureau o]ffice in August of 2020, after receiving notice
              that the 1262 Property was delinquent on taxes. Instead of
              being directed to pay her delinquent taxes of $809.26 on
              the 1262 Property, [] Collins instead paid $1,000[.00] for
              taxes on [the 1260 P]roperty, which she falsely believed
              was in jeopardy of being sold at a tax sale. Had she used
              that available money to pay for the 1262 Property’s
              delinquent [2018] taxes, neither [P]roperty would have
              been at risk of being sold at the 2020 [Tax Sale].

       8
         The Bureau’s certified mailing log reflects that the Bureau sent the 10-Day Letter to
Collins, but does not show that the Bureau received Collins’ signed return receipt.
Notwithstanding, Collins admitted that she received the 10-Day Letter. See R.R. at 35a, 54a.
                                              7
              Because the [Bureau] failed to help [] Collins identify
              which taxes should have been paid in order to protect her
              1262 Property from being sold at the 2020 [Tax Sale]
              when she showed up in person at the [Bureau o]ffice in
              August of 2020, this [trial c]ourt found that [] Collins was
              effectively deprived of notice. As such, [] Collins was []
              deprived of due process prior to her [1262] Property being
              sold . . . .

Rule 1925(a) Op. at 5-6 (bold emphasis added; italic emphasis in original).
              “Our Supreme Court has said that tax sale laws ‘were never meant to
punish taxpayers who omitted through oversight or error (from which the best of us
are never exempt) to pay their taxes.’” Appeal of Neff, 132 A.3d at 650 (quoting In
re Return of Sale of Tax Claim Bureau (Ross Appeal), 76 A.2d 749, 753 (Pa. 1950)).
However, this Court acknowledges that, in Appeal of Marra, 571 A.2d 551 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1990), it stated:

              This Court has never before held and refuses to hold now
              that a taxpayer’s mere assertions of mistaken beliefs are
              sufficient to overturn a tax sale and deny the rights of valid
              purchasers who followed proper procedure. To hold
              otherwise would seriously jeopardize the ability of the
              taxing authorities to recover unpaid taxes through tax sales
              of property since there would be no certainty as to whether
              a subsequent purchaser could gain clear title.

Id. at 554.
              Further, in Auston v. County of Northampton Tax Claim Bureau (Pa.
Cmwlth. No. 1842 C.D. 2019, filed January 12, 2021),9 this Court affirmed the trial
court’s order denying an owner’s exceptions to the upset sale of her property where
the owner mistakenly paid a 2017-2018 school tax bill for her property, leaving her
2016-2017 school tax bill unpaid, and the tax claim bureau had fully complied with
the RETSL’s notice requirements. The owner argued that the tax claim bureau

       9
         This Court’s unreported memorandum opinions may be cited “for [their] persuasive
value, but not as a binding precedent.” Section 414(a) of the Commonwealth Court’s Internal
Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a). Auston is cited for its persuasive value.
                                            8
should have applied her property tax payments to the earlier debt. This Court
concluded that “the RETSL does not contain a provision that would require the [tax
claim bureau] to automatically apply a property owner’s tax payments first to
delinquent taxes, satisfying the oldest outstanding balance prior to current taxes[,]”
and “the [tax claim bureau] did not make any misrepresentations to [the property
o]wner that it would adopt [a] procedure beyond its existing upset tax sale
requirements as outlined in the RETSL.” Auston, slip op. at 7-8.
             In addition, the law is well settled:

                 When the rights of a party are clearly established
                 by defined principles of law, equity should not
                 change or unsettle those rights. Equity follows the
                 law.
             First Fed[.] Sav[.] [&] Loan Ass[’]n v. Swift, . . . 321 A.2d
             895, 897 ([Pa.] 1974) (citations omitted).
                 The rights of all parties to a tax sale are defined
                 and governed by statute. “[W]henever there is a
                 direct rule of law governing the case in all its
                 circumstances, the [equity] court is as much bound
                 by it as would be a court of law. . . . ” Where, as
                 here, the parties’ rights are regulated and fixed by
                 a comprehensive scheme of legislation, the maxim
                 “equity follows the law” is entitled to the greatest
                 deference.
             Id. . . . at 898 (citations omitted). Thus, to the extent that
             the provisions of the [RETSL] govern the circumstances
             of a tax sale case, equity will follow the [RETSL].

Piper v. Tax Claim Bureau of Westmoreland Cnty., 910 A.2d 162, 165 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2006). Thus, case law makes clear that the trial court in the instant case lacked
authority to apply equity to correct the effect of Collins’ misunderstanding, either by
apprising her of the ongoing delinquency on the 1262 Property when she paid the
1260 Property taxes at the Bureau office in 2020, or by applying her other tax
payments to the 1262 Property’s 2018 debt.
                                           9
               Nevertheless,

               “[t]he prohibition against the deprivation of property
               without due process of law reflects the high value,
               embedded in our constitutional and political history, that
               we place on a person’s right to enjoy what is his, free of
               governmental interference.” Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S.
               67, 81 . . . (1972). Due process is implicated in any taking
               of property for the collection of taxes. [See] Sampson v.
               Tax Claim Bureau of Chester C[nty.], 151 A.3d 1163 . . .
               (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). [The] RETSL is for the collection of
               taxes and is not intended to create investment
               opportunities for others, or to strip taxpayers of their
               properties.

Brodhead Creek Assocs., LLC v. Cnty. of Monroe, 231 A.3d 69, 74 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2020). Thus, “[i]t is [also] well settled that . . . strict compliance with the [RETSL’s]
notice provisions is essential to prevent the deprivation of property without due
process.” Est. of Marra v. Tax Claim Bureau of Lackawanna Cnty., 95 A.3d 951,
956 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). Accordingly,

               [i]n all tax sale cases, the tax claim bureau “has the
               burden of proving compliance with the statutory notice
               provisions.” Krawec v. Carbon [Cnty.] Tax Claim
               Bureau, 842 A.2d 520, 523 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). Section
               602 [of the RETSL] requires three different forms of
               notice to property owners prior to an upset tax sale:
               publication, posting, and mail.[10] “If any of the three
               types of notice is defective, the tax sale is void.”
               Gladstone v. Fed[.] Nat[’l] Mortg[.] Ass[’n], 819 A.2d
               171, 173 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).

Appeal of Neff, 132 A.3d at 644-45 (emphasis added; footnote omitted); see also
Donofrio v. Northampton Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 811 A.2d 1120, 1122 (Pa.

       10
           Relative to the mailings, although the tax claim bureau need not show that a property
owner actually received notice of a tax sale, it must show that it sent all required notices. See FS
Partners v. York Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 132 A.3d 577 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016); see also Section
602(h) of the RETSL, 72 P.S. § 5860.602(h) (“No 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.”).
                                                10
Cmwlth. 2002) (Section 602 of the RETSL’s “notice provisions are to be strictly
construed, and . . . if any one is defective, the sale is void.”). Ultimately, “the courts
are responsible for applying the [RETSL] in such a manner as to afford property
owners due process of law with respect to tax sales.” Schooley v. Beaver Cnty. Tax
Claim Bureau, 4 A.3d 797, 800 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
                 This Court observes that, here, the Bureau did not produce copies of the
Notice Letter or the Post-Sale Letter at the trial court hearing. Further, the Posted
Notice the Bureau produced for the record stated that if Collins failed to take action,
the Tax Sale would occur on September 21, 2020, when in fact the Tax Sale occurred
on October 19, 2020.11 In addition, although Collins admitted that she received the
10-Day Letter, this Court is unable to determine what Tax Sale date the Bureau
specified therein because it was not included in the record. See R.R. at 35a, 54a.
Most importantly here, the Bureau did not provide testimony or produce proof
that it published the Tax Sale notice in newspapers of general circulation and/or
the Fayette Legal Journal.12 In the absence of such evidence, the Bureau failed to

       11
            This Court acknowledges that Section 601(a) of the RETSL provides, in relevant part:
                 The bureau shall schedule the date of the sale no earlier than the
                 second Monday of September and before October 1, and the sale
                 may be adjourned, readjourned or continued. No additional notice
                 of sale is required when the sale is adjourned, readjourned or
                 continued if the sale is held by the end of the calendar year.
72 P.S. § 5860.601(a). However, “this Court applies Section 601(a) [of the RETSL], permitting
the sale to be rescheduled without additional notice, only where all statutory notice requirements
for the original sale are satisfied. That did not occur here.” In re Upset Sale Tax Claim Bureau of
Luzerne Cnty. Pa. Held Dec. 11, 2008, 990 A.2d 136, 140 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). In the instant case,
there is no record evidence that the Tax Sale was adjourned, readjourned, or continued.
        12
           The Bureau joined the statement in Hovanec’s brief that “the Bureau introduced evidence
showing that it complied with all of the certified mail and posting requirements set forth in
Section 602(e) of the [RETSL] . . . .” Hovanec Br. at 13 (emphasis added). Neither the Bureau
nor Hovanec assert that the Bureau complied with Section 602(a) of the RETSL’s notice
publication requirement. In her brief, Collins agreed that the “Bureau technically complied with
the statutory notice provisions of [Section 602(e) of the RETSL (relating to certified mailing and

                                                11
establish that Collins received the due process to which she was entitled before the
Bureau exposed her 1262 Property for the Tax Sale.
               Hovanec, joined by the Bureau, points out that “Collins did not contend
at the hearing that the Bureau failed to comply with required notice procedures for
the [T]ax [S]ale, and she did not present any evidence or argument challenging the
Bureau’s compliance with [the RETSL].”                   Hovanec Br. at 7-8.           This Court
acknowledges that when the Bureau’s counsel asked Collins: “[Y]our [sic] not
challenging . . . that . . . [the Bureau] . . . didn’t follow the procedures in regard to
notifying property owners about delinquent taxes, is that right?” Collins responded:
“Correct.”13 R.R. at 42a. The trial court and this Court agree that Collins did not
appear to challenge the Board’s pre-Tax Sale notice at the hearing. However,
because the Bureau’s notice requirements were a statutorily-mandated condition
precedent to a valid tax sale, neither the trial court’s nor Collins’ lay, post-Tax Sale
belief or agreement that the Bureau satisfied all of the notice requirements waived
the Bureau’s duty to present evidence of compliance at the hearing. Thus, the
Bureau’s failure to establish on the record that it published notice of the Tax Sale
pursuant to Section 602(a) of the RETSL was alone a sufficient basis to set aside the
Tax Sale.14

posting] . . . .” Collins Br. at 1. However, Collins erroneously represented in her brief to this
Court that the “Bureau undertook the necessary action . . . to comply with the statutory notice
requirements by advertising the sale, posting the [P]roperty[,] and sending a letter by certified mail
to Collins[,] (R[.]R[.] 20a-22a)[,]” Collins Br. at 5 (emphasis added), as nowhere in the record
does the Bureau mention that it actually advertised or published notice of the Tax Sale of the 1262
Property.
        13
           In his brief to this Court, joined by the Bureau, Hovanec repeatedly states that “there is
no dispute that the Bureau complied with the statute[.]” Hovanec Br. at 14; see also Hovanec Br.
at 7-10, 12-13.
        14
            Although this Court has repeatedly held that “strict compliance with the notice
requirements of Section 602 [of the RETSL] is not required when the [b]ureau proves that a
property owner received actual notice of a pending tax sale[,] Sabbeth v. Tax Claim Bureau of

                                                 12
               Because the Bureau did not produce evidence that it published notice
of the 1262 Property’s Tax Sale in accordance with Section 602(a) of the RETSL,
the Bureau has failed to meet its “burden of proving compliance with the statutory
notice provisions.” Appeal of Neff, 132 A.3d at 644-45 (quoting Krawec, 842 A.2d
at 523). Accordingly, the Tax Sale must be set aside and this Court need not reach
Collins’ actual notice issue.15 Accordingly, this Court holds, albeit on different
grounds, that the trial court properly granted Collins’ Exceptions and Petition and
set aside the Tax Sale.16
               Based on the foregoing, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

                                               _________________________________
                                               ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

Fulton [Cnty.], 714 A.2d 514 . . . (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998)[;]” Appeal of Neff, 132 A.3d at 645, because
“[t]he requisites of published notice are intended to provide information to the public in general[,]”
this Court has made clear that actual notice to the property owner does not cure defective published
notice. See In re Adams Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 200 A.3d 622, 626 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018);
Basehore v. Dauphin Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 480 A.2d 1313, 1314 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984); Hicks
v. Och, 331 A.2d 219 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975). Certainly, if actual notice cannot cure defective notice,
the absence of proof that notice was published at all commands the same result.
        This Court has reached a similar conclusion when a tax claim bureau failed to prove that it
posted a property:
               This mandatory requirement is not automatically excused where the
               owner has actual knowledge of the pending sale because one of the
               purposes of posting is to notify the public at large of the sale and
               persons, such as lien holders, who have an interest in the property
               that may be affected by the sale.
Piper, 910 A.2d at 165 (property was not properly posted where the sheriff’s deputy handed the
posting to the property owner); see also Schooley, 4 A.3d at 801 (“Actual notice to the property
owner does not cure defective posting.”).
        15
           Nor do we reach the defective posting herein. Specifically, the record evidence reveals
that the Bureau’s Posted Notice listed the Tax Sale date as September 21, 2020, when in fact the
1262 Property was sold on October 19, 2020.
        16
           “It is well settled that this Court may affirm on other grounds where the grounds for
affirmance exist.” Thorpe v. Commonwealth, 214 A.3d 335, 339 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019).
                                                 13
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Sale of Tax Delinquent Property :
on October 19, 2020                    :
                                       :    No. 49 C.D. 2021
Appeal of: Richard Hovanec             :

                                    ORDER

            AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 2024, the Fayette County Common
Pleas Court’s order entered on January 4, 2021 is affirmed.

                                      _________________________________
                                      ANNE E. COVEY, Judge