Court Opinion

ID: 9885829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 15:09:55.778817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:53.529736
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Felicia Franco Severino,                     :
                  Appellant                  :
                                             :
              v.                             :
                                             :
J.P. Holdings, LLC and                       :
Schuylkill County Tax                        :   No. 889 C.D. 2022
Claim Bureau                                 :   Submitted: September 11, 2023

BEFORE:       HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
              HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
              HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY                                               FILED: October 6, 2023

              Felicia Franco Severino (Appellant) appeals from the Schuylkill
County (County) Common Pleas Court’s (trial court) July 20, 2022 order denying
and dismissing Appellant’s Petition to Set Aside Private Tax Sale Nunc Pro Tunc
(Petition). Appellant presents three issues for this Court’s review: (1) whether the
County Tax Claim Bureau (Bureau) was required to give Appellant notice of the
proposed private tax sale; (2) whether Appellant was prejudiced because she cannot
read or speak English, and all of the relevant writings in this case were only in
English; and (3) whether the trial court should have granted the Petition. After
review, this Court affirms.
              On September 2, 2020, Appellant purchased the property located at 127
Coal Street, Cumbola, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania (Property), from Carlos
Valdez Cabral for $38,000.00.1 Appellant was to be responsible for approximately
       1
        The deed was dated September 2, 2020, but it was not recorded until October 1, 2020.
See Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 9. The page numbers of Appellant’s Reproduced Record do not
$7,000.00 in unpaid taxes on the Property.2 On September 28, 2020, the Property
was exposed to an upset tax sale. See Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 9. Thereafter,
because it was not sold at the upset tax sale, the Property was exposed to a private
tax sale. On March 17, 2021, J.P. Holdings, LLC (J.P. Holdings) purchased the
Property pursuant to a Private Sale Agreement for $1,864.00. See R.R. at 12, 90.
On August 25, 2021, J.P. Holdings recorded the Property’s deed with the County
Recorder of Deeds’ Office.
               On November 23, 2021, Appellant filed the Petition in the trial court,
which conducted hearings on May 9 and June 3, 2022. At the May 9, 2022 hearing,
the Bureau presented testimony and documentary evidence that a Notice of Private
Sale was served upon the applicable taxing districts and Appellant at her last known
mailing address via certified mail. See R.R. at 13-14, 96. The Bureau submitted
into evidence a copy of the certified mail card (green return receipt card) that was
returned from Appellant’s last known mailing address. See R.R. at 97. The green
return receipt card contained a signature that Appellant denied was hers. In addition,
the Bureau submitted an Affidavit of Publication and Notice for The Republican
Herald newspaper and the Schuylkill Legal Record, which reflected that notice of
the private tax sale was published on May 6 and May 20, 2021, in the newspaper
and a legal journal. See R.R. at 19, 105-108.

include the small “a” required by Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2173, Pa.R.A.P. 2173
(“[T]he pages of . . . the reproduced record . . . shall be numbered separately in Arabic figures . . .
thus, 1, 2, 3, etc., followed . . . by a small a, thus 1a, 2a, 3a, etc.”). For consistency of reference,
the citations used are as reflected in the Reproduced Record.
        Although Appellant testified that she paid $38,000.00 for the Property, see R.R. at 56, the
Property’s deed reflects that she only paid $1,000.00. See R.R. at 120.
        2
          On August 18, 2021, Appellant received and paid a tax bill from the Saint Clair School
District in the amount of $691.41.
                                                   2
               On July 20, 2022, the trial court denied and dismissed Appellant’s
Petition. Appellant appealed to this Court.3 On November 17, 2022, the trial court
directed Appellant 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). Appellant timely filed her Rule 1925(b) Statement. On December 12,
2022, in lieu of submitting an opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a), the trial court
submitted its July 20, 2022 opinion and order.
               Initially, Section 602 of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law (RETSL)4
provides, in relevant part:

               (a) At least thirty (30) days prior to any scheduled sale
               the [B]ureau 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
               properties to be sold as stated in the claims entered and the
               name of the owner.
               ....
               (e) In addition to such publications, similar notice of the
               sale shall also be given by the [B]ureau 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 [the RETSL].

       3
         “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.” In re Sale of Real Est. by Lackawanna Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 255 A.3d 619,
625 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (quoting Plank v. Monroe Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 735 A.2d 178,
181 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999)).
       4
         Act of July 7, 1947, P.L. 1368, as amended, 72 P.S. §§ 5860.101 - 5860.803.

                                                 3
                (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 [B]ureau, 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 [B]ureau 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 [B]ureau, 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 [B]ureau to pay the
            taxes in instalments, in the manner provided by [the
            RETSL].

72 P.S. § 5860.602 (emphasis added).
            This Court has explained:

            In 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. “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). Notwithstanding our mandate to strictly
            construe the notice provisions of the [RETSL], 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. Donofrio [v.

                                         4
               Northampton Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau], 811 A.2d [1120,]
               1122 [(Pa. Cmwlth. 2002)]. However, strict compliance
               with the notice requirements of Section 602 [of the
               RETSL] is not required when the Bureau proves that
               a property owner received actual notice of a pending
               tax sale. Sabbeth v. Tax Claim Bureau of Fulton [Cnty.],
               714 A.2d 514, 517 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).

In re Consolidated Reports & Return by Tax Claims Bureau of Northumberland
Cnty. of Props., 132 A.3d 637, 644-45 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (emphasis added).
               Appellant first argues that the Bureau did not give Appellant the
required notice of the proposed private tax sale.5 Section 613(a) of the RETSL
provides, in relevant part:

               At any time after any property has been exposed to
               public sale and such property was not sold because no bid
               was made equal to the upset price, as hereinbefore
               provided, and whether or not proceedings are initiated
               pursuant to [S]ections 610 through 612.1, [72 P.S. §§
               5860.610 - 5860.612.1 (relating to judicial sales),] the
               [B]ureau may, on its own motion, and shall, on the written
               instructions of any taxing district having any tax claims or
               tax judgments against said property, agree to sell the
               property at private sale, at any price approved by the
               [B]ureau. Notice of the proposed sale, stating the price
               and the property proposed to be sold, shall be given to
               each such taxing district and to the owner of the
               property. Notice shall also be given by publication at
               least two (2) times, with approximately ten (10) days
               intervening between each publication, in at least one
               (1) newspaper of general circulation published in the

       5
         Appellant also argues that the previous owner did not receive notice of the upset tax sale.
However, the trial court sustained the Bureau’s objection to any evidence thereof because it was
irrelevant to the issue before the trial court - whether Appellant received notice of the private tax
sale. This Court agrees with the trial court and will not address this issue. See Zeemer v. Wash.
Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 825 A.2d 716, 718 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (“The trial [court] judge
sustained hearsay and relevancy objections to all of the documentary evidence that Zeemer sought
to introduce. Because none of this evidence pertained to the sufficiency of the sale price or the tax
claim bureau’s compliance with the statutory notice requirements of Section 613(a) [of the
RETSL, 72 P.S. § 5860.613(a)], we need not address the issue of the trial judge’s evidentiary
rulings.”).
                                                 5
             county where the property is located and in the official
             legal journal of that county. The notice by publication
             shall set forth the location of the property, the date and
             place of sale, the price and terms of sale, and the provision
             that the property will be sold free and clear of all tax claims
             and tax judgments.

72 P.S. § 5860.613(a) (emphasis added).
             This Court has explained:

             Section 613 of the [RETSL], which governs the private
             sale of property for delinquent taxes, permits objections
             only as to the private sale notice requirements and to the
             sufficiency of the sale price. The purpose of the notice
             requirements is to permit the taxing authorities, record
             owner, and other interested parties to protect their
             financial interests by making sure that the sale price is
             sufficient. Under Section 613(a) [of the RETSL],
             interested parties have the right to challenge only the
             sufficiency of the sale price and the tax claim bureau’s
             compliance with the private sale notice requirements.
             That rule applies even to the record owner of the property,
             and even when the owner offers to pay all delinquent taxes
             and penalties.

Zeemer v. Wash. Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 825 A.2d 716, 718 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)
(emphasis added; citations omitted).
             At the hearing, the Bureau presented the Bureau’s assistant director
Debra Dash (Dash), who testified that the Notice of Private Sale was sent to
Appellant by certified mail, return receipt requested, and the post office returned the
green return receipt card to the Bureau with a signature on it. See R.R. at 15; see
also R.R. at 98. The Bureau offered, and the trial court accepted, the green return
receipt card into evidence. See R.R. at 47, 97. Appellant testified that she never saw
the green return receipt card and the signature on it was not hers. See R.R. at 62-63.
However, the trial court did not credit Appellant’s testimony, and determined that it
was Appellant’s signature on the green return receipt card.

                                           6
             Dash also described that the Bureau complied with the publication
requirement by publishing the Notice of Private Sale in The Republican Herald
newspaper and the Schuylkill Legal Record. See R.R. at 19. Dash presented

             Proof of publication for [T]he Republican Herald stating
             it was advertised on May 16th and May 20th of 2021[,]
             [a]nd . . . proof of publication affidavit for the Schuylkill
             Legal Record[,] which also verifies it was published on
             May 6th and May 20th of 2021. And copies of those
             advertisements . . . .

R.R. at 19 (italics added); see also R.R. at 105-108. The proof of publication was
entered and accepted into evidence. See R.R. at 47. Appellant testified that she did
not see the Notice of Private Sale published in either publication. See R.R. at 65.
             The law is well established that “[t]he 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 presented.’” In re Monroe Cnty. Tax
Claim Bureau, 91 A.3d 265, 269 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (quoting In re: Sale of Real
Est. by Lackawanna Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau (Appeal of Yankowski), 986 A.2d 213,
216 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009)). Further,

             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. [See Section 602(h) of the RETSL,] 72 P.S. §
             5860.602(h); [In re] Upset Tax Sale Held 11/10/[19]97,
             784 A.2d [834,] 837 [(Pa. Cmwlth. 2002)]. Section 602(h)
             of the [RETSL] provides that “[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).

FS Partners v. York Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 132 A.3d 577, 581-82 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2016). Accordingly, because the Bureau sent the required Notice of Private Sale to

                                           7
Appellant, and published the Notice of Private Sale in the newspaper and a legal
journal, the Bureau fully complied with Section 613 of the RETSL.6
               Appellant next argues that she was prejudiced because she cannot read
or speak English, and all of the relevant writings in this case were only in English.
Appellant cites the County Courts’ Language Access Plan (LAP) and
Commonwealth v. Carmenates, 266 A.3d 1117 (Pa. Super. 2021), to support her
position. The Bureau and J.P. Holdings rejoin that there is no requirement that the
Notice of Private Sale be written in Spanish.
               Pursuant to the County’s LAP:

               Equal access to the courts is fundamental to the legitimacy
               of our system of justice and the trust and confidence of
               Pennsylvanians in our courts. Language services for
               individuals who are limited English proficient (LEP) or
               are deaf or hard of hearing are essential to ensure that they
               are able to fully participate in judicial proceedings and
               court services, programs, and activities in which their
               rights and interests are at stake. Without these services,
               they are effectively denied the protection of our laws.
               Moreover, the courts themselves have an independent
               interest in ensuring the integrity of communications with
               LEP and deaf or hard of hearing court users so that the
               fact[-]finder can hear evidence accurately and deliver
               justice fairly.

County’s LAP at 1.7 “Language access requirements apply not only to judicial
proceedings, but also to a wide range of services, programs, and activities outside

       6
           To the extent the Bureau was required to comply with Section 602 of the RETSL, because
the trial court found that Appellant signed the green return receipt card, Appellant had actual notice
of the private tax sale. See Donofrio v. Northampton Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 811 A.2d 1120 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2002); see also Sabbeth v. Tax Claim Bureau of Fulton Cnty., 714 A.2d 514 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1998). Accordingly, strict compliance with the notice requirements of Section 602 of the RETSL
was not required. See Consolidated Reports.
       7

https://cms8.revize.com/revize/schuylkillcountypa/Document_Center/Departments/Courts%20&
%20Legal/Administrator/LAP%202021%20Revision.pdf (last visited Oct. 5, 2023).
                                                  8
the courtroom that are administered under the authority of the court, i.e.,
provided by or contracted for by the court.” Id. at 5 (emphasis added). Because
the LAP only applies to judicial proceedings and activities administered under the
authority of the court, and tax sale notices are not administered under the authority
of the court, the County’s LAP does not apply to the Bureau.
             Further, in Carmenates, this Court held that a licensee’s search of his
vehicle was not voluntary because the licensee spoke Spanish and

             despite [the trooper’s] knowledge that the translations
             provided by Google Translate were not always accurate,
             he chose not to provide Carmenates with a copy of the
             Pennsylvania State Police Spanish-language consent to
             search form that he kept in his patrol vehicle and instead
             orally requested Carmenates’ consent.            To obtain
             Carmenates’ consent, [the trooper] chose to use the less
             precise word “see” rather than a more precise term such as
             “search,” “examine,” or “look inside,” thereby imbuing
             the request for consent with inherent, yet avoidable,
             ambiguity. Furthermore, [the trooper] acknowledged the
             substantial language barrier towards the end of the
             encounter by ceasing to communicate with Carmenates
             verbally, and, instead, merely pointing and gesturing at the
             items that [the trooper] wanted to search. Given these
             facts, the trial court reasonably concluded that there was a
             “substantial language barrier” between Carmenates and
             [the trooper] that precluded Carmenates from fully
             comprehending [the trooper’s] questions and statements
             and from providing a valid consent to search.

Id. at 1125. Here, there was no person-to-person conversation between the Bureau
and Appellant, the Bureau had no reason to believe that Appellant did not speak
English, and most importantly, Appellant asserts she did not see the Notices of
Private Sale, i.e., either sent to her or published in the newspaper and the legal
journal. Thus, Carmenates is inapposite. Because there is no requirement for the
Notice of Private Sale to be written in Spanish, and Appellant did not prove she had
been prejudiced because she cannot read or speak English and the relevant writings

                                          9
in this case were only in English, the Bureau complied with the private tax sale
requirements by issuing the Notices of Private Sale in English.
             Lastly, Appellant argues that the trial court should have granted the
Petition because she purchased the Property for a significant amount of money and
was not aware that she was responsible to pay the taxes. Appellant asserts that she
received and paid a $691.41 tax bill from the Saint Clair School District. Appellant
proclaims that because she paid for the Property and the taxes, but never received a
Notice of Private Sale, the trial court should have granted the Petition.
             Appellant testified that the seller’s notary handled the entire sales
transaction, see R.R. at 69-70, she signed the Deed reflecting that she only paid
$1,000.00 for the Property because the notary told her to do so, see R.R. at 72, and
she did not conduct a title search because she did not know what that was. See R.R.
at 73-74. While this Court is sympathetic to Appellant’s circumstances, the fact that
she purchased the Property without knowing there were delinquent taxes did not give
the trial court authority to grant her Petition. Rather, because the Bureau complied
with the required private tax sale notices, the trial court properly denied and
dismissed the Petition.
             For all of the above reasons, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

                                        _________________________________
                                        ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

                                          10
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Felicia Franco Severino,               :
                  Appellant            :
                                       :
            v.                         :
                                       :
J.P. Holdings, LLC and                 :
Schuylkill County Tax                  :   No. 889 C.D. 2022
Claim Bureau                           :

                                  ORDER

            AND NOW, this 6th day of October, 2023, the Schuylkill County
Common Pleas Court’s July 20, 2022 order is affirmed.

                                    _________________________________
                                    ANNE E. COVEY, Judge