Opinion
No. 1598 C.D. 2013
05-28-2014
In Re: Sale of Delinquent Properties Exposed for Sale September 17, 2012 Appeal of: David A. Pritts
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN
David A. Pritts appeals from the August 13, 2013, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County (trial court) denying Pritts' petition to set aside the September 17, 2012, tax upset sales of five parcels of contiguous, real property (Properties) in Fayette County. We affirm.
On May 15, 2012, the Fayette County Tax Claim Bureau (Bureau) mailed to Pritts a Notice of Tax Sale for the Properties via certified mail, restricted delivery, return receipt requested, indicating that the Properties would be exposed to tax upset sale on September 17, 2012, if the taxes in excess of $15,000 owed by Pritts remained unpaid. On July 5, 2012, the Bureau posted a Notice of Tax Sale and a Notice of Return and Claim on each of the Properties. On August 7, 2012, the Bureau published a Notice of Tax Sale in the Herald Standard and the Daily Courier and, on August 11, 2012, published a Notice of Tax Sale in the Fayette Legal Journal for each of the Properties. On August 29, 2012, the Bureau mailed a Notice of Tax Sale for each of the Properties to Pritts via first class mail.
Pritts had paid his taxes untimely every year since 2001. (N.T., 9/17/12, at 17.)
On September 17, 2012, the Bureau held the tax upset sales. H.R. Lewis (Purchaser) successfully bid on each of the Properties. On November 2, 2012, Pritts filed a petition to set aside the tax sales with the trial court. The trial court granted Purchaser's petition to intervene on December 18, 2012.
On February 13, 2013, the trial court held a hearing. Sarah Minnick, director of the Bureau, brought pertinent records with her and testified about the notices that the Bureau served in advance of the upset tax sales. (N.T., 9/17/12, at 4-18). Minnick explained that a posting company posted notices on each of the Properties on July 5, 2012, at the most visible places to the public. (Id. at 11.)
For each of the Properties, the Bureau presented a file containing, inter alia, a dated photograph of the postings, a signed statement from the person posting, a satellite image of the property with a star indicating the location of the postings, a copy of the Notice of Public Tax Sale, a copy of the Notice of Return and Claim, a record of the certified mail that the Bureau sent restricted delivery, return receipt requested, which was returned unclaimed by Pritts, copies of the newspaper publications, and proof of payment for the publications. (See Exs. 1-5.)
At the hearing, Pritts testified that he never received any of the notices. (Id. at 21.) He received a letter in the mail informing him that he had registered mail to claim, but he never picked the mail up. (Id. at 25.) Pritts also admitted that he received a first-class letter "very late" informing him that he owed taxes. (Id.) After being advised that the Properties were sold, Pritts walked the Properties, but he could not locate the posted notices. (Id. at 23.)
On August 13, 2013, the trial court denied Pritts' petition to set aside the tax sales. Pritts now appeals to this court.
Our scope of review in a tax sale case is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, clearly erred as a matter of law, or rendered a decision that lacked supporting evidence. Ban v. Tax Claim Bureau of Washington County, 698 A.2d 1386, 1388 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).
Section 602 of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law (Law) governs notice for upset tax sales and sets forth three methods of service: (1) publication in two newspapers and the legal journal at least thirty days before the sale; (2) notification "by United States certified mail, restricted delivery, return receipt requested, postage prepaid" to the owner at least thirty days before the sale; and (3) posting of the property at least ten days before the sale. 72 P.S. §5860.602(a), (e)(1), and (e)(3). If any of the three methods of notice is defective, the tax sale is void. Ban v. Tax Claim Bureau of Washington County, 698 A.2d 1386, 1388 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).
Act of July 7, 1947, P.L. 1368, as amended, 72 P.S. §5860.602.
Pritts does not challenge the fact that the Bureau strictly and timely complied with publication and mailing requirements of the Law by publishing notices in several newspapers and mailing notices via certified and first-class mail to Pritts' address.
Pritts argues that the Bureau did not properly post notice of the impending tax sales on the Properties in accordance with section 602 of the Law, 72 P.S. §5860.602. We disagree.
This court has held that section 602 of the Law, 72 P.S. §5860.602, requires the method of posting to be reasonable and likely to inform the taxpayer and the public of the intended sale. See Wiles v. Washington County Tax Claim Bureau, 972 A.2d 24, 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). A reasonable posting is securely attached and is conspicuous to both the owner and the public. Id.
Pritts asserts that the evidence insufficiently established proper posting because it lacks "any first-hand testimonial account or specific written explanation as to the manner and exact place of the postings." (Pritts' Br. at 6.) To the contrary, the photographs, maps, and global positioning system coordinates in the Bureau's file, corroborated by Minnick, indicate the exact locations of the postings. Examining this photographic evidence commonsensically, we can verify that the Properties were posted in reasonable, publicly conspicuous locations.
The satellite images show that Property 1, on which Pritts' residence was located, was posted on an access road off of Harris Road leading to the property. (See Ex. 1.) On Properties 2 and 5, the posting occurred directly adjacent to Harris Road. (See Exs. 2, 5.) Properties 3 and 4 were both wooded areas located behind the other properties with no direct border with Harris Road. (See Exs. 3, 4.) Property 3 was posted at the entrance to the woods. (See Ex. 3.) Property 4 was posted where an access road enters the parcel. (See Ex. 4.) The photographs demonstrate that the postings were securely attached, at eye-level, and free from obstructions. --------
While Pritts testified that he did not see these postings, actual notice is not required where the Bureau strictly complies with the notice requirements of the Law. See Casanta v. Clearfield County Tax Claim Bureau, 435 A.2d 681, 682 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981). Here, the trial court correctly found that the Bureau's evidence showed that the Bureau properly posted on the Properties.
Accordingly, we affirm.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th day of May, 2014, we hereby affirm the August 13, 2013, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge