McElvenny v. Bucks County Tax Claim Bureau

Citations: 804 A.2d 719; 2002 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 699

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; August 6, 2002; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Patrice A. McElvenny appealed a Bucks County Court decision that denied her petition to void a tax sale of property originally owned by Frank and Rose Bloch. The property, consisting of two acres in Wrightstown Township, was inherited by John F. McElvenny and Bernard McElvenny after the deaths of the Blochs. John McElvenny, who served as executor of Frank Bloch’s estate, died intestate in 1997 without officially transferring the property title. Following his death, property taxes became delinquent, leading to notices mailed by the Bucks County Tax Claim Bureau (Bureau) regarding the outstanding taxes, all of which were returned as unclaimed. The Bureau proceeded with a public tax sale, ultimately selling the property to Robert Milner in November 1999 without having personally served the supposed owners. McElvenny, upon learning of the sale, argued that the Bureau failed to comply with notice requirements under the Real Estate Tax Sale Law. The trial court ruled against her, stating she was not entitled to notice as an owner. The Commonwealth Court ultimately reversed this decision.

The Court's review of a denial to set aside a tax sale is confined to assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion, lacked supporting evidence, or made a legal error. In this case, McElvenny argues that the trial court made several errors: 1) it did not permit testimony about McElvenny's possession and apparent ownership of the property, 2) it ruled McElvenny was not the property owner, 3) it upheld the Bureau's sale of the property despite its failure to reasonably ascertain the actual owner beforehand, and 4) it determined that the Bureau met the advertising and posting requirements of the Law. 

The Law mandates that when notice of a tax sale is required, and such notice is not received or acknowledged, the Bureau must make reasonable efforts to locate the concerned parties before the sale can occur. These efforts may include searching county telephone directories and contacting any alternate addresses. The Bureau must document these efforts in the property file. The burden of proof lies with the Bureau to show compliance with the statutory notice requirements. Proper notice is critical, as emphasized by the State Supreme Court, which has remarked on the significant implications of property forfeiture due to unpaid taxes. Tax sales are intended to ensure tax collection rather than to punish taxpayers for inadvertent errors. Due process of law necessitates that property owners receive actual notification of impending forfeiture whenever feasible.

Reasonable efforts under Section 607.1 of the Law are emphasized through comparisons of two cases. In *Sale of Property of Dalessio*, the Bureau demonstrated reasonable efforts by thoroughly searching various records to notify a tenant in common about a tax sale. Conversely, in *Tax Claim Bureau of Beaver County*, the Bureau failed to make reasonable efforts despite actions like posting the property and sending notices to the last known address, because it neglected to check domestic relations records and had access to the correct address. In the current case, the Bureau received a tax payment in December 1996 with the correct address but continued to send notices to an outdated address from 1994. The Bureau's failure to update address records and notate its files invalidated the tax sale. Citing prior rulings, the document stresses strict compliance with notice requirements to protect against property deprivation without due process. The Bureau did not argue compliance but speculated that it wouldn't have mattered, which is deemed legally insufficient. The court concludes that since the Bureau did not fulfill its obligations under Section 607.1(a), the tax sale is invalid and the trial court's order is reversed. Judge Leadbetter dissents, arguing against a hyper-technical interpretation of the statute, noting that the record owner had died, making the efforts to locate non-existent entities irrelevant.

Patrice A. McElvenny, as the surviving spouse and administratrix of John McElvenny's estate, filed the relevant petition. The notice requirements in question are statutory, rendering Milner's argument regarding lack of clean hands ineffective, as established in Krumbine v. Lebanon County Tax Claim Bureau, which emphasizes compliance with statutory notice requirements over the owner's neglect. The Law's Section 102 defines "owner" based on property registration or possession. Due to the outcome of this case, the court did not need to determine the validity of the property's advertisement or posting. Additionally, it remains unclear whether the estate had been formally closed, as the executor had passed away without a successor.