In re Lay v. County of Erie Tax Claim Bureau – Cmwlth. Court – March 2, 2022 – unreported**
Held: Since the property at issue was “owner-occupied,” personal service of the notice of tax sale was required, despite the owners having received actual notice of the sale and despite them being “serial and willing tax delinquents.”
From the opinion:
Purpose of the tax sale law – The “purpose of tax sales is not to strip the taxpayer of his property but to insure the collection of taxes.” Husak v. Fayette Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 61 A.3d 302, 312 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).
Burden of proof – “In all tax sale cases, the tax claim bureau has the burden of proving compliance with the statutory notice provisions.” In re Consol. Reps. & Return by Tax Claims Bureau of Northumberland Cnty. of Props. (Appeal of Neff), 132 A.3d 637, 644-45 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016).
Owner-occupied properties – In addition to other notice requirements of the RETSL (Real Estate Tax Sale Law), sec. 601(a)(3) of the RETS, 72 P.S. 5860.601 (a)(3), requires that the county tax claim bureau personally serve an “owner-occupant” of a property subject to an upset sale with notice of that sale. The RETSL defines “owner-occupant” as “the owner of a property which has improvements constructed thereon and for which the annual tax bill is mailed to an owner residing at the same address as that of the property.” Section 102 of the RETSL, 72 P.S. § 5860.102. The plain text of this definition “contains four necessary elements: (1) an owner-occupant must be an owner of the property; (2) the property must have improvements constructed thereon; (3) the annual tax bill for the that property must be mailed to an owner at the property; and (4) such owner referenced in prong three must reside at the property.” Commonwealth v. Giulian, 141 A.3d 1262, 1267 (Pa. 2016) (“A statute’s plain language generally provides the best indication of legislative intent.”).
Actual notice of the sale does not cure a defect in service - The requirements of Section 601(a)(3) “are cumulative and apply in addition to the tax claim bureaus’ obligations to provide notice through publications, posting, and mail.” Appeal of Neff, 132 A.3d at 645. Therefore, actual notice is not a defense to a lack of personal service under Section 601(a)(3) and does not cure a defect in the personal service requirement. See McKelvey v. Westmoreland Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 983 A.2d 1271, 1274 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).
+++++++
** An unreported decision of the Commonwealth Court
