Background
Jealdine Collins owned property at 1219 Longacre Boulevard in Lansdowne, Delaware County. The property was listed and sold at an upset tax sale on September 21, 2023. Collins filed timely objections to the sale. At an evidentiary hearing, Guy Leroy, the successful bidder, presented the testimony of Janine Heinlein, the Bureau’s Upset Sales Coordinator, who described the notice efforts undertaken before the sale.
Heinlein testified that approximately a year before the sale, the Bureau mailed a notice of return and claim for overdue taxes to Collins at the property address. The receipt was returned with “CV-19” written in the signature box, apparently a reference to the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than Collins’s personal signature. The Bureau subsequently sent notice of the pending tax sale by certified mail with restricted delivery, and that notice was returned with Collins’s signature. The Bureau also posted the property with notice, arranged personal service by the Delaware County Sheriff, and sent a “10-day notice” by first class mail that was not returned. The trial court credited Heinlein’s testimony and dismissed Collins’s objections, finding that the Bureau had complied with the notice requirements of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law (RETSL).
The Court’s Holding
The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the Bureau’s notice efforts satisfied RETSL and that no additional notification efforts were required under Section 607.1. The key distinction was between the initial notice of return and claim (mailed a year before the sale and returned with “CV-19” instead of a signature) and the actual notices of the pending tax sale required by Section 602 of RETSL. Collins conceded that the Bureau complied with Section 602’s requirements but argued that Section 607.1’s additional-effort mandate was triggered by the unsigned return of the earlier notice of return and claim.
The court rejected this argument. Section 607.1(a) of RETSL requires a tax claim bureau to exercise “reasonable efforts to discover the whereabouts” of the property owner and provide additional notification only when a “notification of a pending tax sale” is returned without the required personal signature or under circumstances raising significant doubt about actual receipt. The court held that the earlier notice of return and claim was not a “notification of a pending tax sale” within the meaning of the statute. The notices that did qualify under Section 602 were successfully delivered: the certified mail notice was returned with Collins’s signature, and the first-class 10-day notice was not returned as undelivered. Because the statute’s trigger for additional efforts was never activated, the Bureau’s failure to perform such efforts provided no basis to set aside the sale.
Key Takeaways
- Section 607.1 of RETSL, which requires additional notification efforts when mailings are returned unsigned or under doubtful circumstances, applies only to notices of a “pending tax sale” required by Section 602, not to earlier preliminary notices such as a notice of return and claim for overdue taxes.
- When the actual tax sale notice sent by certified mail is returned with the owner’s signature, and a subsequent first-class mailing is not returned as undelivered, the Bureau’s notice obligations under RETSL are satisfied without additional efforts.
- The COVID-19 pandemic created practical complications for certified mail delivery, as illustrated by the “CV-19” notation on the earlier return receipt, but those complications did not extend to excuse timely notice where later mailings succeeded.
- Property owners challenging upset tax sales in Pennsylvania must distinguish between the various types of notice the Bureau sends and identify which specific statutory notice requirement was allegedly violated.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the scope of the “additional efforts” requirement under Section 607.1 of RETSL, a provision that property owners frequently invoke to challenge upset tax sales. By drawing a sharp line between pre-sale collection notices and the actual notices of a pending tax sale required by Section 602, the court limits the circumstances that trigger the Bureau’s duty to go beyond standard mailing procedures. Practitioners representing property owners in tax sale challenges should focus their arguments on whether the Section 602 notices themselves were properly delivered, rather than relying on problems with earlier, preliminary correspondence.
For tax claim bureaus and successful bidders, the opinion provides welcome clarity that a problematic return on a preliminary notice does not retroactively taint an otherwise valid notice process. Given the widespread mail disruptions during the COVID-19 era, this holding may have broader implications for pending challenges involving pandemic-era mail irregularities where the actual sale notices were successfully delivered.