In re Property of Anvil, Inc.

31 Pa. D. & C.3d 668, 1981 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 25
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Chester County
DecidedApril 21, 1981
Docketno. 357P, 1978
StatusPublished

This text of 31 Pa. D. & C.3d 668 (In re Property of Anvil, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Chester County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Property of Anvil, Inc., 31 Pa. D. & C.3d 668, 1981 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 25 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981).

Opinion

WOOD, J.,

Anvil, Inc., has appealed from our order of January 15, 1981, which [669]*669dismissed Anvil’s petition to set aside a tax sale of its property located in East Marlborough Township. The sale was held on September 11, 1978, and the parties have stipulated that Anvil received its notice of the tax sale on July 1, 1978, thereby satisfying the time requirements of 72 P.S. §6860.602.

It is Anvil’s position that we erred in failing to set aside the tax sale for two reasons:

(1) The Tax Claim Bureau of Chester County is said to have failed to publish the notice of tax sale properly, since the published upset price was only approximately ten percent of the actual upset price.

(2) The Tax Claim Bureau supposedly failed to conduct the real estate tax sale properly, because it failed to read aloud the statement from the Corporation Bureau, as required by 72 P.S. §1402.

Initially, we note that appellant has not cited, nor are we aware of, any cases in which a tax sale has been set aside for the reasons advanced by Anvil in this case. Anvil points to Chester County Tax Claim Bureau Appeal, 208 Pa. Super. 384, 222 A.2d 602 (1966) for the principle that the notice provisions of the tax sale statute must be strictly construed to guard against deprivation of property without due process of law: See also Clawson Appeal, 39 Pa. Commw. 492, 395 A.2d 703 (1979); and Teslovich v. Johnson, 37 Pa. Commw. 449, 391 A.2d 11 (1978), aff'd, 486 Pa. 622, 406 A.2d 1374 (1979). We agree. However, our review of the record reveals that the two errors alleged by Anvil did not render the notice so inadequate as to deprive Anvil of its property without due process of law. The “fundamental inquiry” is the reasonableness of the Bureau’s notice: In Re: Upset Sale Tax Claim Bureau of Bucks County, 48 Pa. Commw. 435, 410 A.2d 376, 378 (1980).

[670]*670In the present case, the published upset price was $226.27 instead of the actual upset price of $2,249.89, which represented the total of all taxes, delinquent and currently due on the sale date.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Clawson Appeal
39 Pa. Commw. 492 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
Chester County Tax Claim Bureau Appeal
222 A.2d 602 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1966)
Teslovich v. Johnson
406 A.2d 1374 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
Teslovich v. Johnson
391 A.2d 11 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)
In re Return of Tax Sale by Indiana County Tax Claim Bureau
395 A.2d 703 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
In re Upset Sale, Tax Claim Bureau
410 A.2d 376 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 Pa. D. & C.3d 668, 1981 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-property-of-anvil-inc-pactcomplcheste-1981.