Preston v. Erie County Tax Claim Bureau

16 Pa. D. & C.3d 1, 1980 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 304
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County
DecidedMarch 10, 1980
Docketno. 3634-A-1978
StatusPublished

This text of 16 Pa. D. & C.3d 1 (Preston v. Erie County Tax Claim Bureau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Preston v. Erie County Tax Claim Bureau, 16 Pa. D. & C.3d 1, 1980 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 304 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980).

Opinion

CARNEY, P.J.,

Pursuant to Mr. Preston’s petition to set aside the tax sale we held a hearing on October 1, 1979. At that time Mr. Preston testified that he presently resides at Route 8, P.O. Box 520B, Fort Myers, Fla. Mr. Preston has resided at the present address since approximately February, 1979.

On March 29, 1976 Mr. Preston was in Erie County to pay taxes on the two parcels in question. He went to the Harborcreek Tax Collector who advised him that any delinquent taxes would have to be paid at the tax claim bureau. On the same day Mr. Preston went to the bureau office and paid his delinquent taxes. This fact is corroborated by receipts from the bureau showing a payment on that date. While making this payment Mr. Preston noticed that the bureau had his address as 2118 Alameda Avenue, Sarasota, Fla. He informed the clerk that his address at the time was Route 8, P.O. Box 127, Fort Myers, Fla. Mr. Preston had lived at that address since January, 1976 and then moved to his present address. Mr. Preston left the bureau office thinking he had nothing further to do to [3]*3change his address. He did not report his address change to the assessor’s office.

The bureau clerk, Heidi Hill, verified the payment of taxes on March 29, 1976 but did not have any independent recollection of any conversation with Mr. Preston. Ms. Hill testified that the bureau’s practice in accepting a change of address was to refer the property owner to the assessment office.

The notices of delinquent taxes and the notices of a tax sale were returned to the bureau after being mailed to the Sarasota address. Mr. Preston contends that the sale of both parcels should be set aside because of improper notice.

To protect the interest of the tax sale purchasers this court previously ordered on December 5, 1979 that notice of these proceedings be given to the purchaser and that they be allowed 30 days to intervene. Notice has been given with proof filed of record, but no intervention has been sought. We thus proceed to the merits of this petition.

The Real Estate Tax Sale Law of July 7,1947, P.L. 1368, as amended, 72 P.S. §5860.101 et seq., provides in part:

“§5860.308 Notice of fifing of returns and entry of claim
“(a) Not later than the thirty-first day of July of each year, or for the first year a county operates under this act, not later than the thirty-first day of October, or whenever, heretofore, any claims have been returned to and a claim entered with the tax claim bureau and the same has not been pursued to sale as provided for by the act of assembly, then within six (6) months after the effective date of this act, the bureau shall give notice of the return of said [4]*4taxes and the entry of such claim to each delinquent taxable, by United States registered mail or United States certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to the owner personally at his last known post office address. If the owner of the property is unknown and has been unknown for a period of not less than ten years, such notice shall be given only by posting on the property affected. In the case of a mobilehome or house trailer subject to real property tax, a copy of such notice shall at the same time and in like manner be sent to the encumbrance holders of record. If no post office address of the owner is known or if a notice mailed to an owner at such last known post office address is not delivered to him by the postal authorities, then notice as herein provided shall immediately be posted on the property affected. . . .
“§5860.602 Notice of sale
“Prior to any scheduled sale the bureau shall give notice thereof, once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks 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 (a) the purposes of such sale, (b) the time of such sale, (c) the place of such sale, (d) the terms of the sale including the approximate upset price, (e) the descriptions of the properties to be sold as stated in the claims entered, each description commencing with
Name of Owner
[5]*5Description
“Where the owner is unknown and has been unknown for a period of not less than ten years, the name of the owner need not be included in such description. . . .
“In addition to such publications, similar notice of the sale shall also be given by the bureau, at least ten (10) days before the date of the sale, by United States certified mail, personal addressee only, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to each owner as defined by this act and by posting on the property. . . .
“No 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. ...”

This case epitomizes that legal axiom “hard cases make bad law.” There is the tug of competing principles and equities. In interpreting and applying the above notice provisions of the act our appellate courts have required strict compliance: Ross Appeal, 366 Pa. 100, 76 A. 2d 749 (1950); Grace Budding Co., Inc. v. Clouser, 5 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 110, 289 A. 2d 525 (1972). On the other hand the taxing authority has no statutory duty to search out and find taxpayers: Clouser, supra. The taxpayer has a duty and responsibility to pay his taxes and it is incumbent upon him to notify the taxing authorities of a change of address: Ibid.

Because the testimony is corroborated by the record of payment, we accept Mr. Preston’s testimony that he orally told the bureau of his existing address as of March 29, 1976, when paying prior delinquent taxes. We fail to sympathize with Mr. Preston be[6]*6cause he allowed 1977 and 1978 to pass without receiving any tax bills and yet he took no further steps to notify taxing authorities of his current address.

On the other hand, the aforecited statutory provisions impose upon the tax claim bureau the obligations to give proper notice of any delinquency lien and sale by mail to the “last known post office address.”

In Wyndmoor Estates, Inc. v. Tax Claim Bureau of Montgomery County, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 475, 319 A. 2d 192 (1974), the court set aside a tax sale because of improper notice. The taxpayer’s attorney advised both the township tax collector and the county assessment office of a change of address. Indeed the assessor mailed a corrected bill and the ensuing year’s bill to the new address.

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

Related

Ross Appeal
76 A.2d 749 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1950)
Grace Building Co. v. Clouser
289 A.2d 525 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1972)
Wyndmoor Estates, Inc. v. Tax Claim Bureau
319 A.2d 192 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
Grace Building Co. v. Chester County Land Corp.
339 A.2d 161 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Pa. D. & C.3d 1, 1980 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/preston-v-erie-county-tax-claim-bureau-pactcomplerie-1980.