Court Opinion

ID: 9699743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:50:05.572123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:56.577111
License: Public Domain

OLSZEWSKI, Judge,
concurring:
I concur with my colleagues that the sheriffs sale must be set aside for lack of proper notice. When the Commonwealth *248exercises its sovereign power to extinguish property rights, strict compliance with the notice requirements set forth in our rules of civil procedure is especially important. I am also satisfied that Frontier’s actual notice, coming only the day before the sale, was insufficient to allow Frontier to meaningfully participate in the sheriffs sale. To hold otherwise would prejudice Frontier.
When, however, actual notice is ample, and lack of formal notice works no prejudice, we should not demand strict compliance with procedural rules for their own sake. As a general matter, we interpret our rules of civil procedure liberally, “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding to which they are applicable.” Pa.R.C.P., Rule 126, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Where appropriate, we may “disregard any error or defect of procedure which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Id. This approach does not countenance the wholesale derogation of our procedural rules, but does allow us to bend them just a little where the interests of justice demand. I would not surrender this flexibility in favor of a uniform policy of super-strict compliance with procedural rules, when such compliance would only be pointless and burdensome.