Estate
of Filchner – Cmwlth. Court – March 9, 2015
Following
its decision in Battisti v. Tax Claim Bureau, 76 A.3d 111 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013),
the court held that where a petition to set aside a tax sale raises disputed
issues of fact, the court must hold a hearing and take evidence, rather than
summarily resolving the facts on its own.
In
granting a party’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court denied
Taxpayer’s objections without an evidentiary hearing, and thereby denied
Taxpayer due process. Battisti, 76 A.3d at 116. Due process under the United
States and Pennsylvania Constitutions must be satisfied whenever the government
subjects a citizen’s property to forfeiture for nonpayment of taxes. Geier v.
Tax Claim Bureau of Schuylkill County, 588 A.2d 480 (Pa. 1991). Once Taxpayer
presents a prima facie challenge to the tax sale, the burden shifts to
the Tax Claim Bureau to prove strict compliance with the notice provisions of
the RETSL. Michener v. Montgomery County Tax Claim Bureau, 671 A.2d 285, 289-90
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). Where there is a factual dispute, a taxpayer is entitled to
an evidentiary hearing and remanded the case to the trial court.
___________________
The opinion, though not reported, may be cited "for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent." 210 Pa. Code 69.414.
If the case is not recent, the link in this posting may not
work. In that event, search for the case by name and date on Westlaw,
Lexis, Google Scholar, or the court website http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/court-opinions/
