City
of Philadelphia v. Morris Park Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses – Cmwlth.
Court -3-7-16 – ** unreported memorandum opinion
Held: Notice of tax sale inadequate and sale set
aside where
- city knew that service by mail had not been
accomplished
- affidavit of posting did not include
information about date, time, place of posting nor any photo of posted notice
and thus did not satisfy the MCTLA statute or due process requirements
* The
purpose of a sheriff’s sale under the MCTLA “is not to strip an owner of his or
her property but to collect municipal claims.” City of Philadelphia v. Manu,
76 A.3d 601, 606 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013); see also Fernandez v. Tax Claim Bureau
of Northampton County, 925 A.2d 207, 215 n.18 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). The primary purpose of a taxing authority is
to “insure payment of taxes. Although selling of the property may end up being
the ultimate means used toward achieving that end, it is not the end itself.”).
* Strict
complaince required - Section 39.2 of the MCTLA mandates strict service requirements
that the City must follow for a court to gain the jurisdiction necessary to
authorize a sheriff’s sale, including service of the petition and rule to show
cause why the property should not be sold by “posting a true and correct copy
of the petition and rule on the most public part of the property.” 53 P.S. §
7193.2(a)(1); City of Philadelphia v. Schaffer, 974 A.2d 509, 512 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2009). Strict compliance with the service mandates of the MCTLA
protects the procedural due process rights of all parties involved by
guaranteeing that they receive notice and an opportunity to be heard and
protects an owner against deprivation of his or her property without
substantive due process of law. Manu, 76 A.3d at 606; First Union
National Bank v. F.A. Realty Investors Corp., 812 A.2d 719, 726 (Pa. Super.
2000); see also Tracy v. Chester County, Tax Claim Bureau, 489 A.2d
1334, 1339 (Pa. 1985).
* Duty of court to conduct independent inquiry -- A sheriff’s
sale pursuant to the MCTLA is conducted under the auspices of the court and it
is the court’s duty to conduct an independent inquiry to ensure that the MCTLA
has been complied with, and that the due process rights guaranteed by the
Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions are adequately safeguarded. U.S. National Bank Association v. United
Hands Community Land Trust, __ A.3d __, __ (Pa. Cmwlth No. 2237 C.D. 2014,
filed December 15, 2015), 2015 WL 8718035, slip op. at 5; Manu, 76 A.3d
at 606.
* Presumption of regularity of posting – does not apply where
neither affidavit nor testimony shows date, time, place or posting. The presumption of of
regularity afforded a public official cannot overcome a statutory mandate.
Unlike the RETSL, the statutory language in the MCTLA requires posting of “the
petition and rule on the most public part of the property.” 53 P.S. §
7193.2(a)(1) (emphasis added). There is no evidence in the record that the
petition and rule were posted on the most public part of the Property. U.S. National Bank Association held
that the presumption of regularity cannot be applied to private individuals;
the facts in this case demonstrate the limits of the application of the
presumption of regularity to public officials.
*
Posting – policy – Posting is of critical importance where notice by mail was
not successful - In a first class city in this Commonwealth, proper posting is
not only an additional reasonable step that should be taken to adequately
safeguard constitutional due process once a municipal authority has knowledge
that service through the mail was ineffective, but a basic and longstanding
statutory obligation. There is no
overestimating the great challenges facing the City in its efforts to collect
municipal taxes. In recognition of that challenge, the City was granted the
power to take private property, a power so extraordinary under our system of
governance that it is constitutionally restrained. In accordance with this
constitutional restraint, the General Assembly established strict procedural
requirements that a municipality must follow to exercise its power to take
private property from one and sell it to another. The momentous nature of the
act of taking property from one and selling it to another to collect municipal
taxes likewise requires the courts to examine the record in a sheriff’s sale
with a close, independent and vigorous eye to ensure that the procedural
requirements for notice of the sale have been adhered to and due process of law
has been adequately safeguarded. The Trial Court had a duty to conduct an
independent inquiry to ascertain if the City had fulfilled its statutory and
constitutional obligations; by failing to do so here, the Trial Court abused
its discretion, and by relying on facts not in evidence, the Trial Court erred
as a matter of law in concluding that it gained jurisdiction to authorize the
sale of the Property for the collection of municipal taxes. Accordingly, the order of the Trial Court is
reversed and the tax sale is set aside.
-----------------------
** An unreported Commonwealth
Court case may not be cited binding precedent but can be cited for its
persuasive value. See 210 Pa.
Code § 69.414(b) and Pa. R.A.P.
3716
If the case is old, the link
may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case name, court,
and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis, Google
Scholar)
