Court Opinion

ID: 9918812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 17:17:25.537391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:11.118683
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Amanda Johnson,                                :
                                 Appellant     : No. 266 C.D. 2022
                                               : Submitted: July 14, 2023
               v.                              :
                                               :
Greene County Tax Claim Bureau                 :
and Heather Gilbert                            :

BEFORE:        HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
               HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
               HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WALLACE                                             FILED: January 16, 2024

        Amanda Johnson (Objector) appeals from the March 10, 2022 order of the
Court of Common Pleas of Greene County (trial court) denying her objections to the
Greene County Tax Claim Bureau’s (the Bureau) sale of her property to Heather
Gilbert (Purchaser) at a public tax sale. On appeal, Objector argues the trial court
erred in determining the Bureau: (1) complied with the notice provisions of the Real
Estate Tax Sale Law1 (Tax Sale Law) and (2) established good cause to waive
personal service. Upon review, we affirm.

1
    Act of July 7, 1947, P.L. 1368, as amended, 72 P.S. §§ 5860.101 - 5860.803.
                                 I.    Background
      The underlying facts are not in dispute in this matter. Therefore, we begin by
accepting the trial court’s factual background, which is based in large part on the
parties’ stipulations:

      [Objector] acquired . . . Tax Parcel No. 07-11-114 in Franklin
      Township, Greene County [(the Property)] by deed dated October 17,
      2012. For the 2019 and 2020 tax years, [Objector] failed to pay her
      taxes. The amount of back taxes owed was $7,771.98 at the time of
      sale. On April 6, 2020, a certified letter was sent by the [Bureau] stating
      the amount of back tax due . . . with delivery on April 11, 2020 marked
      “COVID.” As the taxes remained unpaid, the first notice of Public Sale
      scheduled for September 15, 2021[,] was sent on May 4, 2021[,] by
      certified mail and remained unclaimed. Two unsuccessful attempts of
      personal service were made by [the Bureau], through [its] agent, on
      [Friday] June 11, 2021[,] and [Saturday] June 12, 2021. On June 11,
      notice of the Upset Sale was posted on the [P]roperty. Publication of
      the sale was advertised . . . on July 29, 2021[,] and . . . July 30, 2021.

      On August 25, 2021, a ten-day notice was mailed and not returned to
      [the Bureau]. On September 8th, [the Bureau] petitioned the Court for
      waiver of personal service upon good cause shown. An Order for
      waiver of personal service was entered on September 8th, 2021[,] by
      [trial court] Judge Carpenter [(Judge Carpenter)].

      The [P]roperty was sold on September 15, 2021[,] for $7,771.84. On
      September 17th, notice that the [P]roperty was sold was sent via
      certified mail but went unclaimed. Subsequently, a confirmation nisi
      and a decree absolute were entered by the [trial court]. [The Bureau]
      conveyed the [P]roperty via deed to [Purchaser]. On December 15,
      2021, [Objector] filed an Exception and Objection to Sale.

Trial Ct. Order and Opinion, 3/10/22, at 1-3.
      When the Bureau filed its Petition to Waive Personal Service (the Petition),
the Bureau’s factual averments relating to its attempts to personally serve Objector
stated:

                                          2
               4. Those owner-occupied properties described in Exhibit A are
         ones for which the [Bureau’s] serving agent attempted personal service
         on the owners thereof, but after good faith efforts failed to locate said
         owners, and therefore notices were posted on the premises.

                5. The failure of personal service on the owners of said
         properties for the good cause shown gives [the trial c]ourt the power to
         waive the requirements of personal notice, and to permit the properties
         to be included in the scheduled sale. See [Section 601(3) of the Tax
         Sale Law,] 72 P.S. [§] 5860.601(3).

Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 2a. Exhibit A to the Petition is a spreadsheet listing
39 different properties. Id. at 5a. With respect to the Property, Exhibit A listed two
property numbers, “Amanda G Johnson” as the “Tax Payer,” “6/11/2021” as the
“Date,” “2:23:00 PM” as the “Time,” and “No Contact” as the “Outcome.” Id. On
the same day the Bureau filed the Petition, Judge Carpenter signed an order waiving
the Bureau’s obligation to personally serve Objector “for good cause shown.” R.R.
at 6a.
         After the tax sale, Objector filed her “Objection to Tax Sale” (the Objections),
requesting the trial court to strike the sale of the Property because the Bureau did not
provide her with proper notice under the Tax Sale Law. R.R. at 10a-11a. The trial
court held a hearing on the Objections. At the hearing, the Bureau’s Director
testified that its process server attempted to personally serve Objector on two
occasions, once on a Friday afternoon and once on a Saturday morning. Id. at 197a,
214a-15a. The Bureau’s Director also explained that Objector called the tax claim
office on July 22, 2021, and was aware that she needed to pay the 2019 taxes to
avoid the Property being sold at a tax sale. Id. at 217a. Objector testified at the
hearing, admitting she saw the posting on the Property, but alleging the Bureau
informed her over the phone that the posting was for a trailer on her property rather
than for the Property itself. Id. at 221a.

                                             3
       In denying Objector’s requested relief, the trial court found Objector’s
testimony about her July 2021 phone call with the Bureau was not credible and
determined Objector received actual notice of the tax sale because she admitted to
seeing the physical posting. Trial Ct. Order and Opinion, 3/10/22, at 5-6, 7. As a
result, the trial court determined the Bureau was not obligated to strictly comply with
the notice requirements of Section 602 of the Tax Sale Law, 72 P.S. § 5860.602
(Section 602).2 Id. at 6 (citing In re Consol. Reports and Returns by the Tax Claims
Bureau of Northumberland Cnty. of Props., 132 A.3d 637 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (en
banc) (hereinafter, “Appeal of Neff ”)). The trial court also determined the Bureau
had shown good cause for the trial court to waive personal service under Section
601(a)(3) of the Tax Sale Law, 72 P.S. § 5860.601(a)(3) (Section 601(a)(3)).3 Id.

2
    Section 602 requires the Bureau to provide a property owner with service by publication,
posting, and mail before an upset tax sale. See 72 P.S. § 5860.602. Regarding publication, Section
602(a) requires the Bureau to publish notice in two newspapers of general circulation and one legal
journal, “if any [are] designated by the court for the publication of legal notices” at least 30 days
before the scheduled sale. 72 P.S. § 5860.602(a). Section 602(e)(3) requires the Bureau to post
the property at least 10 days before the sale, “in a manner that is ‘reasonable and likely to inform
the taxpayer, as well as the public at large, of an intended real property sale.’” In re Consol.
Reports and Returns by the Tax Claims Bureau of Northumberland Cnty. of Props., 132 A.3d 637,
645 n.13 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (citation omitted); 72 P.S. § 5860.602(e)(3). Finally, Section
602(e)(1) requires the Bureau to send notice to each owner by “certified mail, restricted delivery,
return receipt requested, postage prepaid” at least 30 days before the sale. 72 P.S. §
5860.602(e)(1). If the Bureau does not receive a return receipt from its certified mailing for each
owner, then “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”
at least 10 days before the sale. Id.
3
    Section 601(a)(3) provides:
         No owner-occupied property may be sold unless the bureau has given the
         owner occupant written notice of such sale at least ten (10) days prior to the
         date of actual sale by personal service by the sheriff or his deputy or person
         deputized by the sheriff for this purpose unless the county commissioners, by
         resolution, appoint a person or persons to make all personal services required by
         this clause. The sheriff or his deputy shall make a return of service to the bureau,
(Footnote continued on next page…)

                                                   4
       Objector appealed from the trial court’s order. On appeal, Objector argues the
trial court erred in determining the Bureau provided her with proper notice under
Section 602. See Appellant’s Br. at 8. In addition, Objector argues the trial court
erred in determining the Bureau established good cause to justify its request to waive
Section 601(a)(3)’s personal service requirements. Id. at 8-10.
                                         II.    Analysis
       Our review in tax sale cases is limited to determining whether the trial court
abused its discretion or erred at law. See Rice v. Compro Distrib., Inc., 901 A.2d
570, 574 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). When specifically reviewing a trial court’s decision
to grant a tax claim bureau’s request to waive personal service, “we focus our inquiry
on whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Appeal of Neff, 132 A.3d at 650.
In considering whether a trial court abused its discretion, this Court looks to whether
the trial court engaged in “a manifestly unreasonable exercise in judgment[] or
[rendered] a final result that evidences partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.”
Allegheny Cnty. v. Golf Resort, Inc., 974 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009)
(citation omitted).
       We begin by rejecting Objector’s argument the trial court erred in determining
the Bureau satisfied Section 602’s service requirements because the Bureau did not
serve her by certified mail. See Objector’s Br. at 8. While a tax sale is typically

        or the persons appointed by the county commissioners in lieu of the sheriff or his
        deputy shall file with the bureau written proof of service, setting forth the name of
        the person served, the date and time and place of service, and attach a copy of the
        notice which was served. If such personal notice cannot be served within
        twenty-five (25) days of the request by the bureau to make such personal
        service, the bureau may petition the court of common pleas to waive the
        requirement of personal notice for good cause shown. Personal service of notice
        on one of the owners shall be deemed personal service on all owners.
72 P.S. § 5860.601(a)(3) (emphasis added).

                                                 5
void in the face of defective service, this Court has determined that “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.”
Appeal of Neff, 132 A.3d at 645 (citing Sabbeth v. Tax Claim Bureau of Fulton Cnty.,
714 A.2d 514, 517 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998)). The trial court determined Objector had
actual notice of the tax sale because Objector admitted to seeing the physical posting
on the Property. Because Objector received actual notice, the Bureau was not
required to show it satisfied Section 602’s certified mailing requirement. See id.
      Next, we turn to Objector’s argument the trial court erred in determining the
Bureau established good cause to waive Section 601(a)(3)’s personal service
requirement. Unlike Section 602, “actual notice of the tax sale does not waive strict
compliance with the personal service requirements of Section 601(a)(3).” Appeal of
Neff, 132 A.3d at 646 (citing McKelvey v. Westmoreland Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau,
983 A.2d 1271, 1274 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009)). In Famageltto v. County of Erie Tax
Claim Bureau, 133 A.3d 337 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), this Court explained Section
601(a)(3)’s purpose, as follows:

      Section 601(a)(3) demonstrates the General Assembly’s “heightened
      concern for owner occupants being divested of the very property in
      which they are residing.” Matter of Tax Sales by Tax Claim Bureau of
      Dauphin County, 651 A.2d 1157, 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). We have
      said that, “[b]y enacting [S]ection 601[(a)(3)], the [General Assembly]
      expressed a desire to provide a qualitatively different type of notice to
      an owner[-]occupant and afford such owner with increased protection
      by way of additional notice.” McKelvey[, 983 A.2d at 1274]. Yet, the
      General Assembly understood that, in certain circumstances, tax claim
      bureaus should not be required to incur the high costs associated with
      ensuring that notice was received by each owner-occupant personally
      and included a provision within Section 601(a)(3) of the [Tax Sale] Law
      allowing the personal service of notice requirement to be waived for
      “good cause shown.” The General Assembly decided to place a burden
      on the taxing bureaus to provide justification for a waiver and to give

                                          6
      trial courts the task of balancing the goal of providing heightened notice
      to owner-occupants against the taxing bureaus’ obligations to collect
      property taxes. See [Appeal of Neff], 132 A.3d [at] 650 . . . .

Famageltto, 133 A.3d at 346-47.
      In Famageltto, a trial court judge reviewed a tax claim bureau’s waiver
petition, which requested a waiver of personal service of notice for approximately
1,700 property owners. Id. at 347-48. The waiver petition included “an averment
that the process server ‘made a good faith attempt to make personal service on the
owner-occupiers’ and that ‘[a]ll other requirements of notice . . . have been
accomplished.’” Id. at 348 (citation omitted). Based upon those averments, the trial
court judge made an initial determination that the tax claim bureau had good cause
to waive personal service. Id. Upon review, we noted:

      [A] presumption of regularity . . . attaches to all official acts [of the tax
      claim bureau]. See Hughes v. Chaplin, . . . 132 A.2d 200, 202 ([Pa.]
      1957) (stating that “a prima facie presumption of the regularity of the
      acts of public officers exists until the contrary appears . . . . In tax sales
      it is particularly suitable” (internal quotations omitted). Based on the
      evidence presented to [the trial court judge], and given the presumption
      of regularity that attaches to the [b]ureau’s activities, we cannot say that
      the [w]aiver [p]etition was facially defective or that [the trial court
      judge] abused his discretion in finding that the [b]ureau showed good
      cause for receiving the waiver of personal service of notice at that time.
      However, this proceeding was necessarily one-sided because the
      property owners had not been found or become part of the process.

      It was only later in the statutory tax sale process that [the a]ppellants
      could become involved. . . . [The a]ppellants filed exceptions, and their
      challenge rebuts the presumption of regularity of the [b]ureau’s
      activities. [The a]ppellants’ exceptions are resolved through a
      confrontational process where the burden is initially on the [b]ureau to
      show that it strictly complied with the notice requirements of the [Tax
      Sale] Law. [In re Tax Sale of Real Property Situated in] Jefferson
      Township, 828 A.2d [475,] 478–79 [(Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)]. It is not until
      this point, in the context of the adversarial proceeding, that evidence
      can be presented and tested, that a determination as to whether there

                                            7
      was in fact good cause to waive the personal service of notice
      requirement for that property should be made, at the same time all the
      other notice requirements are tested.

      Allowing review at this hearing effectuates the legislative intent of the
      personal service of notice requirement for owner-occupied
      properties . . . . Upon receipt of a petition to waive the personal service
      of notice requirement of Section 601(a)(3), the trial judge may exercise
      discretion and find that good cause was shown sufficient to permit the
      waiver of personal service of notice without further, and often
      unnecessary, costs to tax claim bureaus and the courts. For example, in
      this case, the petition included 1,700 properties. However, once a
      property owner challenges the tax sale, and tax claim bureaus are
      required to meet the burden of proving that compliance with the notice
      requirements of the [Tax Sale] Law in an adversarial proceeding, there
      is opportunity to test whether the heightened requirements for notice to
      owner-occupants were in fact met. Thus, the legislative intent to
      provide additional protections for owner-occupants is fulfilled in a cost-
      effective manner, which enables a full hearing and determination on the
      evidence at the time when a judge can be presented with all of the
      evidence. Because this second judge can be presented with additional
      and different evidence from both parties regarding the tax claim
      bureau’s efforts to comply with the [Tax Sale] Law’s personal service
      of notice requirement, the second judge is not deciding the same
      questions as the first judge . . . .

Famageltto, 133 A.3d at 348-49.
      The Petition alleged the Bureau made good faith efforts to personally serve
Objector and posted the Property. Because the Bureau’s actions are cloaked in a
presumption of regularity, we cannot say the Petition was facially defective. See
Famageltto, 133 A.3d at 348. Therefore, we must determine whether the evidence
the Bureau presented at the hearing on the Objections was sufficient to establish
good cause to waive personal service under Section 601(a)(3). See id. at 348-89.
      In Appeal of Neff, this Court noted that while “good cause shown” is not
defined in the Tax Sale Law, Pennsylvania courts have defined it to require a
“substantial reason, one that affords a legal excuse.” Appeal of Neff, 132 A.3d at 650

                                          8
(citation omitted). We also explained that what constitutes good cause shown will
depend on the particular facts and circumstances in each case. Id. at 649-50. Finally,
we noted “‘the determination of whether good cause has been demonstrated is
trusted to the trial court’s sound discretion.’” Id. at 650 (citation omitted).
      In Appeal of Neff, a tax claim bureau petitioned for a waiver of Section
601(a)(3)’s personal service requirements. In the tax claim bureau’s petition, it
averred that it attempted personal service “on three different days at three different
times of the day and that it satisfied the other notice requirements of Section 602
[i.e., publication, posting and certified mail] of the [Tax Sale] Law.” Id. at 651. In
addition, the tax claim bureau attached an exhibit that listed the dates and times of
each of its three service attempts. Id. We concluded the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in granting the tax claim bureau a waiver of Section 601(a)(3)’s personal
service requirement, opining:

      The trial court, cognizant that someone’s home was at stake, that the
      purpose of the [Tax Sale] Law is to protect local governments from
      persistent tax delinquents, [and] that the [local tax claim bureau]
      attested to the fact that it satisfied the notice requirements of Section
      602 of the [Tax Sale] Law, and attempted personal service three times
      at three different times of the day, utilized its discretion to determine
      that personal service of notice should be waived.

Id.
      While we determined in Appeal of Neff that “actual notice of the tax sale does
not waive strict compliance with the personal service requirements of Section
601(a)(3),” a trial court can consider the steps a tax claim bureau took to satisfy the
service requirements of Section 602 and Section 601(a)(3) in determining whether a
tax claim bureau established good cause to waive personal service under Section
601(a)(3). See Appeal of Neff, 132 A.3d at 646, 651 (considering the tax claim

                                           9
bureau’s attempts at personal service and its satisfaction of the notice requirements
of Section 602 in determining whether good cause existed to waive personal
service).
      Here, the Bureau established it attempted personal service on two occasions,
once during the work week and once during the weekend, at different times of day.
The Bureau also established it published notice of the tax sale and attempted to serve
Objector through the mail on numerous occasions.           In addition, the Bureau
established it posted the Property and Objector had actual notice of the tax sale by
virtue of seeing the posting. Under these circumstances, we cannot hold the trial
court abused its discretion in determining the Bureau established good cause to
waive personal service.
                                 III.   Conclusion
      For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the trial court’s order.

                                              ______________________________
                                              STACY WALLACE, Judge

                                         10
        IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Amanda Johnson,                      :
                         Appellant   : No. 266 C.D. 2022
                                     :
           v.                        :
                                     :
Greene County Tax Claim Bureau       :
and Heather Gilbert                  :

                                 ORDER

     AND NOW, this 16th day of January 2024, the March 10, 2022 order of the
Court of Common Pleas of Greene County is AFFIRMED.

                                     ______________________________
                                     STACY WALLACE, Judge