In re Judicial Tax Sale – Lackawanna County – Cmwlth. Court – May 10, 2021
Held: Where there is evidence that proper notice of a tax sale was not given, or where there is doubt that it was given, failure to comply with additional reasonable efforts under 72 P.S sec. 5860.607a to give notice of tax sale deprives a court, ab initio, of jurisdiction to consider or order a judicial sale of property on account of non-payment of taxes. Noncompliance with the law’s notice requirements under sec. 607a “is a jurisdictional defect that can void a judicial sale” – which defect can be raised at any time.
From the opinion:
Fundamental rights at issue –
“Given the fundamental rights at issue when the government sells private property for nonpayment of taxes and the critical role compliance with the Law’s reasonable notice requirements plays in protecting those fundamental rights, Ms. Brown’s arguments that noncompliance with the Law’s requirements is a jurisdictional defect that can void a judicial sale are persuasive and supported by our caselaw. As we held in Manu, “[f]ailure to strictly comply with the service requirement[s] deprives the court of jurisdiction to authorize a sheriff’s sale.” 76 A.3d at 605-06. This is because “[s]trict compliance with the service requirement protects the procedural due process rights of all interested parties to notice and an opportunity to be heard and guards against deprivation of property without substantive due process of law.” Id. at 606 (emphasis added); see also Fraisar, 892 A.2d at 77 (“The rules governing service . . . [are] to ensure notice . . . .”). In cases where, as here, the sale of property is directed by the court of common pleas it is important for that court to “make ‘an independent inquiry’ regarding . . . strict compliance with the service requirement[s],” Manu, 76 A.3d at 605, in order to confirm that it has jurisdiction. . . .Further, the confirmation of proper service and notice is crucial in judicial sales because the statute of limitations to challenge such sales is a mere six months, as opposed to the six-year limitations period available to challenge upset tax sales. Absent jurisdiction, common pleas lacked the authority to approve the judicial sale of the property in the first instance.
Purpose of tax collection law is not to deprive citizens of their property
We must be cognizant that the purpose of the Law is to ensure the collection of taxes, not to deprive citizens of their property. Rinaldi, 22 A.3d at 315. These provisions “were never meant to punish taxpayers who omitted through oversight or error . . . to pay their taxes.” In re Return of Sale of Tax Claim Bureau, 76 A.2d 749, 753 (Pa. 1950). Our Supreme Court has stated that, over time, “taxing authorities have lost sight of the fact that it is a momentous event under the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitutions when a government subjects a citizen’s property to forfeiture for the non-payment of taxes.” Tracy v. Cnty. of Chester, Tax Claim Bureau, 489 A.2d 1334, 1339 (Pa. 1985) (emphasis added). “It is a fundamental provision of both our state and federal constitutions that no person shall be deprived of property except by the law of the land or due process of law,” which requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Hess v. Westerwick, 76 A.2d 745, 748 (Pa. 1950). Such notice must be reasonable under the circumstances. Id.
The General Assembly has established, via the Law, what notice is reasonably required prior to selling a property at tax sale. These notice requirements are mandatory and must be strictly construed. Mfrs. & Traders Tr. Co. v. Luzerne Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 56 A.3d 36, 39 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). One of these mandatory requirements is a tax claim bureau’s obligation to make reasonable efforts to find an owner pursuant to Section 607.1 when mailed notice is returned or when there is doubt that the owner received such notice.
