Popple v. Luzerne Co. Tax Claim Bureau - Cmwlth. Court - November 12, 2008
http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/2224CD07_11-12-08.pdf
Former owners (F/O) objected to tax sale nearly four years after it took place. The court held that due process was satisfied and F/Os were "personally served" and had actual notice of tax sale under 72 P.S. §5860.602 where
- the notice was sent to the "care of" address listed on the deed and
- the address was the same as two businesses (including a realty co.) which they owned
- was signed for by a person with the same last name, as their agent, who had many times signed for mail for the F/Os
"[A]ctual notice of a pending tax sale waives strict compliance with statutory notice require-ments, and technical deficiencies in those notice requirements do not invalidate a tax sale." Stanford-Gale v. Tax Claim Bureau, 816 A.2d 1214, 1217 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) "[A]ctual notice is such notice as is positively proved to have been given to a party directly and personally, or such as he is presumed to have received personally because the evidence within his knowledge was sufficient to put him upon inquiry." Sabbeth v. Tax Claim Bureau, 714 A.2d 514, 517 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).
Here, the court considered the "totality of the circumstances," including that that"Bureau sent notice to the address for the grantees indicated on the deed, and it was signed for by someone with the same last name who was permitted by the Post Office to receive certified mail at this post office box, who indicated his capacity as 'Agent' and who signed for certified mail addressed to the [F/Os] on other occasions. As a result, the Court concludes that the Bureau followed common sense business practices and that the [former owners] had implied actual notice...."
