The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania this week reversed a Schuylkill County court order, ruling that the Schuylkill County Tax Claim Bureau’s policy of refusing to accept delinquent tax payments after the Friday preceding an upset sale violated state law.
This decision, filed on Wednesday, sets aside the Sept. 18, 2023, upset tax sale of Aleyda Maldonado Norberto’s property at 59 Hazle St. in Delano Township. Marek Tchorzewski was the purchaser of the property at the sale.
Norberto appealed the Feb. 26, 2024, order of the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, which had overruled her objections to the sale. The Commonwealth Court found two primary errors in the trial court’s ruling: the misapplication of the payment deadline and an unsupported finding of “actual notice”.
The Commonwealth Court’s decision reverses the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas order and remanded the matter for an order setting aside the tax sale.
Illegal Payment Deadline Violated State Law
The Commonwealth Court determined that the Tax Claim Bureau’s policy – which stated “NO PAYMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED ON UPSET SALE PROPERTIES AFTER 4:30 PM ON LAST BUSINESS DAY BEFORE September 18, 2023!” – was directly contrary to the Real Estate Tax Sale Law (RETSL).
Under RETSL Section 603, a homeowner is permitted to remove a property from sale by paying all delinquent taxes “prior to the actual sale”. RETSL defines “actual sale” as “payment of the full amount of money agreed to be paid as the sale price by the successful bidder or purchaser at upset sale”, the court says in its majority opinion written by Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough.
Norberto testified that on the morning of the sale, Sept. 18, 2023, she “rushed” to the Bureau’s office with cash to pay the taxes, but payment was refused because of the Bureau’s policy.
She stated the bidding had just started when she arrived, and the Property had not yet been sold. The Bureau did not offer any evidence to contradict this testimony.
The court concluded that since the bidding was ongoing, the “actual sale” had not yet occurred, and the Bureau should have accepted her offer of payment.
The Bureau’s policy of not accepting payments after 4:30 p.m. on the Friday before the sale was found to be “directly contrary to Sections 603 and 601 of the RETSL”.
The Commonwealth Court noted that the trial court had incorrectly dismissed this argument by concluding that Norberto intended only to buy back the property at the upset sale, not pay the delinquent taxes. The appeals court found this finding was “directly contradicted by the undisputed facts of record”, as Norberto specifically testified that she came to the Tax Claim Bureau to pay her taxes with cash.
Schuylkill County Court Erred on “Actual Notice” Finding, Commonwealth Court Finds
The Schuylkill County trial court found that despite the Tax Claim Bureau’s failures in formal notice, Norberto had “actual notice” of the sale because she was notified by a neighbor and was present at the sale.
The Commonwealth Court found that this was not supported by substantial evidence. The court clarified that “actual notice” must be received “in sufficient time for her to react to prevent the sale or protect her interests”.
Because the Bureau’s policy prohibited payment after 4:30 p.m. on the Friday before the Monday sale, Norberto’s appearance on the morning of the sale could not establish sufficient “actual notice” since she was already barred from paying the taxes to stop the sale.
Sufficient actual notice requires proof that the Taxpayer received notice in time to correct the tax delinquency and stop the sale, and that proof was lacking.
Bureau Failed to Conduct Required Additional Notification Efforts
The Commonwealth Court agreed with the trial court that the Tax Claim Bureau failed to strictly comply with RETSL’s notice requirements. The Tax Claim Bureau sent a Notice of Sale via certified mail, restricted delivery, to the 300 E. Beech St., Hazleton, address it had on file for the Taxpayer, but it was returned “unclaimed”. This status triggers the Tax Claim Bureau’s “automatic duty to conduct additional notification efforts” under RETSL Section 607.1.
The Tax Claim Bureau only sent a “ten-day letter” via first-class mail to the same 300 E. Beech Street address, which the court found was inadequate. It did not testify to conducting further searches for alternative addresses or documenting its efforts in the property file as required by law.
Norberto denied living at the 300 E. Beech Street address since 2012, stating she lived at the Delano property since purchasing it in July 2020.
The court did, however, reject Norberto’s separate argument that the sale should be set aside because her name was listed as “Maldonado Norberto Aleyda” instead of “Aleyda Maldonado Norberto” on the notices.
The court found that this order of names was “essentially the same” for RETSL purposes and adequately identified the recipient. The court also noted that this name order appeared on her Pennsylvania and Massachusetts driver’s licenses. The court concluded that this type of error, where the order of the first and surnames is switched, does not affect the validity of the tax sale.
Subscribe to Coal Region Canary
Get email updates from Coal Region Canary by becoming a subscriber today. Just enter your email address below to get started!Support Coal Region Canary
Like our reporting and want to support truly local news in Schuylkill County? Your small donations help. For as little as $5, your contribution will allow us to cover more news that directly affects you. Consider donating today by hitting the big yellow button below ...