Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-4847 & 02-5973 CivilPARKTON ENTERPRISES, INC.,: PETITIONER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P E N N SYLVAN IA DAVID A. KRULAC and 02-4847 CIVIL TERM DIANE E. KRULAC, husband and: PETITION TO SET ASIDE TAX SALE wife, and CUMBERLAND COUNTY TAX CLAIM BUREAU, RESPONDENTS DAVID A. KRULAC and DIANE E. KRULAC, husband and wife, PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P E N N SYLVAN IA PARKTON ENTERPRISES, INC.,: 02-5973 CIVIL TERM DEFENDANT QUIET TITLE V. ORLANDO TORRES, JR. and ANAILDA MALAVE, DEFENDANTS IN RE: PETITION TO SET ASIDE TAX SALE AND ACTION TO QUIET TITLE OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., October 15, 2003:-- On January 31, 2001, Eastern Savings Bank FSB obtained a default judgment in mortgage foreclosure against Orlando Torres, Jr. and Anailda Malave, on a property 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM at 705 Erford Road, East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County.1 In addition to not making required payments on the mortgage, the mortgagees were in default for failing to make required payments into escrow with Eastern of 2000 real estate taxes. In January, 2001, the unpaid 2000 real estate taxes were turned over by the East Pennsboro Tax Collector to the Cumberland County Tax Claim Bureau. A sheriff's sale of 705 Erford Road on the mortgage foreclosure was scheduled for June $, 2002, but postponed because Torres and Malave filed for bankruptcy in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Eastern had actual knowledge of the existence of the lien of the Tax Claim Bureau for unpaid 2000 real estate taxes, and a Pa.R.C.P. 3129.2 notice was served on the Tax Claim Bureau prior to June 5, 2002.: The bankruptcy proceedings were dismissed on July 30, 2002. The sheriff's sale was rescheduled for September 4, 2002. The property was sold that date to the first mortgagee and executing creditor 1 Torres and Malave purchased the property by a deed dated and recorded on December 29, 1998. : Rule 3129.2(a) provides, inter alia, that notice of the sale of real property by the sheriff shall be given "to all persons whose names and addresses are set forth in the affidavit required by Rule 3129.1 .... "Those persons, set forth in Rule 3129.1, include: (1) the owner or reputed owner of the real property and of the defendant in the judgment; and (2) every other person who has any record lien on that property; and (3) every other person who has any record interest in that property which may be affected by the sale; and (4) every other person who has any interest in that property not of record which may be affected by the sale and of which the plaintiff has knowledge. -2- 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM for $1.00.3 The sheriff's schedule of distribution listed a priority claim for unpaid taxes owed to the Cumberland County Tax Claim Bureau. Torres and Malave continued in possession of the property after the sheriff's sale. On September 18, 2002, an assignment of the mortgage dated August 1, 2002 from Eastern to Parkton Enterprises, Inc. was recorded. On September 25, 2002, a sheriff's deed to Parkton dated September 24, 2002, was recorded. The deed sets forth: The same having been sold by me to the said grantee on the__4th day of September Anno Domini Two Thousand and Two (2002) after due advertisement according to law, under and by Virtue of a Writ of Execution issued on the 20th day of February Anno Domini 2002 out of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, as of Civil Term, Two Thousand (2000) Number 4692, at the suit of Eastern Savinq Bank, FSB a.qainst Orlando Torres, Jr. and Anailda Malave. On September 26, 2002, the Cumberland County Tax Claim Bureau conducted an upset sale of 705 Er'ford Road for unpaid 2000 real estate taxes. David A. Krulac and Diane E. Krulac purchased the property for $5,682.20, an amount that was sufficient to pay the taxes due.4 Torres and Malave were still in possession of the property when it was sold by the Tax Claim Bureau. The Bureau did not notify either Parkton or Eastern of the sale. It attempted to serve a post-sale notice by certified mail 3 Writ No. 2000-4692 Civil, Eastern Savings Bank FSB v. Orlando Torres, Jr. and Anailda Malave. The real debt of the defaulted mortgage was $83,323.89. 4 With all costs the Krulacs paid the Tax Bureau $7,268.74. -3- 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM on Parkton that was not received. On November 12, 2002, Parkton filed a complaint against Torres and Malave to eject them from 705 Erford Road. A deed dated and recorded on December 2, 2002, conveyed title from the Tax Claim Bureau to the Krulacs. Parkton did not learn of the upset sale until December 17, 2002, when the Krulacs filed a compliant against it to quiet title to 705 Erford Road, and a petition to intervene in Parkton's ejectment action against Torres and Malave. On March 12, 2003, Parkton filed a petition to set aside the upset sale nunc pro tunc. That petition and the action to quiet title were consolidated for disposition. Torres and Malave have now vacated 705 Erford Road. Their interest in the property has been divested, and they have not appeared in the action to quiet title. The contesting parties agree that Parkton, having not been served with a post-sale notice, and having first been notified of the upset sale on December 17, 2002, shall be allowed to proceed nunc pro tunc on its petition to set the sale aside. ISSUES Until September 25, 2002, the day before the upset sale on September 26, the recorded owners by deed of 705 Erford Road were Orlando Torres, Jr. and Anailda Malave. Parkton, as the recorded owner of the property on the date of the upset sale to the Krulacs, maintains that the sale must be set aside because it did not receive notice before it was conducted. All pre-sale notices were in proper form and were properly advertised and served on Torres and Malave within the time limits required by the Real -4- 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM Estate Tax Sale Law, 72 P.S. Section 5860.101 et seq. The last notices were the sheriff's service upon Torres and Malave and the posting of the property on August 16, 2002. The Real Estate Tax Sale Law requires that the Tax Claim Bureau provide three separate notices for an upset sale: (1) publication at least thirty days prior to the sale; (2) certified/first class mail at least thirty days prior to the date of sale to each owner; and (3) posting of the property at least ten days prior to sale. 72 P.S. § 5860.602. Also, there must be personal service at least ten days prior to the date of the actual sale where properties are "owner occupied." Section 5860.102 defines an "owner" as: the person in whose name the property is last registered, if registered according to law, or, if not registered according to law, the person whose name last appears as an owner of record on any deed or instrument of conveyance recorded in the county office designed for recording .... 5 The Tax Claim Bureau sets forth in its brief: [d]enies that Parkton had any right to any notice and asserts that the notice requirements of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law were properly executed. The Tax Claim Bureau cannot be required to serve an individual or entity which is not an owner of record at the time of Notice and indeed cannot be known to the Tax Claim Bureau. To hold otherwise would permit parties to thwart the sale of their property by a "last minute" conveyance of their property. Such a rule would Cumberland County does not have a registry system. -5- 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM threaten the real estate tax collection process, and thus be contrary to public policy. The Krulacs in their brief: [c]ontend that the definition of owner as set forth in Section 102 of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law, 72 P.S. 5860.102 contemplates the owner of record at the time the required three forms of notice are properly given in accordance with the Stature. To hold otherwise would be to allow the parties to thwart the ability of the Tax Claim Bureau to conduct a valid upset sale by making last minute transfers of title to the property after the Notices are properly provided to the Record Owner. The Tax Claim Bureau can be effectively prevented from ever selling the property for unpaid real estate taxes if such last minutes transfers were held to invalidate the prior Notices. CASE LAW In Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983), a tax sale case, the Supreme Court of the United States concluded that: [p]ublication and posting are unlikely to reach those who, although they have an interest in the property, do not make special efforts to keep abreast of such notices .... Notice by mail or other means as certain to insure actual notice is a minimum constitutional precondition to a proceeding that will adversely affect the liberty or property interest of any party, whether unlettered or well versed in commercial practice, if its name and address are reasonably ascertainable. (Emphasis added.) In Wells Fargo Bank of Minnesota N.A.v. Tax Claim Bureau of Monroe County, 817 A.2d 1196 (Pa. Commw. 2003), the facts were: On October 26, 1993, Catherine A. Colarco took title to property located at 1296 Winding Way, Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania .... On February 5, 1999, Colarco executed a mortgage on the property to -6- 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM Ameriquest Mortgage Company, which later assigned it to Wells Fargo. On March 3, 2000, Wells Fargo filed a complaint in mortgage foreclosure against Colarco for default under the terms of the mortgage. A default order in favor of Wells Fargo was entered in the foreclosure action on May 11, 2000. In order to satisfy the judgment against Colarco, a United States Marshal's sale was held on May 17, 2001. Wells Fargo purchased the property at the sale. On July 13, 2001, the United States Marshal executed a deed in favor of Wells Fargo. The deed was recorded in the Office for the Recording of Deeds of Monroe County on July 24, 2001. Colarco had failed to make payments of real estate taxes on the property for the year 1999. On July 11, 2001, the Monroe County Tax Claim Bureau (Bureau) sent Colarco notice that the property would be sold at a tax sale to be held on September 28, 2001. Colarco executed a return receipt for the certified mail. Notice of the tax sale was published in the Monroe Legal Reporter and the Pocono Record on August 17, 2001. The property was also posted with a notice of sale on August 1, 2001. On September 28, 2001, the Bureau sold the property to the Gardner Family Trust, Steven Gladstone, and Robert E. Plank, Jr., (collectively, Appellees). On October 5, 2001, the Bureau sent notice to Wells Fargo that the property had been sold at an upset tax sale. This notice is the first notification to Wells Fargo that is reflected in the Bureau's file. There was no express actual notice or implied actual notice to the property owner, Wells Fargo, prior to a tax sale. The Commonwealth Court reversed an order of a trial court that upheld the sale because the published notices and the posting of the property identified Catherine Colarco as the owner when in fact Wells Fargo was the recorded owner at the time the notices were published and the property was posted. The Tax Claim Bureau and the purchasers suggested that Wells Fargo failed to act in a reasonable manner by not investigating the status of the taxes on the property prior to its purchase at the United States Marshal's sale. The Court, citing Clawson Appeal, -7- 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM 39 Pa. Commw. 492 (1979), stated that any alleged failure on the part of Wells Fargo is irrelevant in the determination of whether the Bureau complied with its statutory obligations because: The [Law], however, impose[s] duties, not on owners, but on the agencies responsible for sales; and such of those duties as relate to the giving of notice to owners of impending sales of their properties must be strictly complied with. Grace Building Co. v. Clouse, 5 Pa. Cmwlth. 110, 289 A.2d 525 (1972). Hence, the inquiry is not to be focused on the neglect of the owner, which is often present in some degree but on whether the activities of the Bureau comply with the requirements of the statute. In Gladstone v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 819 A.2d 171 (Pa. Commw. 2003), Mellon Mortgage Company obtained a judgment in mortgage foreclosure against Julio and Wendy Echeverria on September 29, 1999. On June 22, 2000, FNMA purchased the property at a United States Marshal's sale. A deed was recorded in Monroe County on August 16, 2000. The Echeverrias failed to pay real estate taxes on the property in 1998. The Tax Claim Bureau sent all pre-sale notices and posted the property when the Echeverrias were the record owners. On September 22, 2000, Gladstone purchased the property at tax sale. By a notice dated September 27, 2000, the Bureau notified FNMA that the property had been sold at an upset sale. FNMA filed a petition to set aside the tax sale and Gladstone filed an action to quiet title. The trial court concluded that the Bureau's duty to inform the owner of record was satisfied once all required pre-sale notices were delivered. It rejected FNMA's contention that the Bureau had an obligation to continually check the recording indices -8- 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM of Monroe County prior to conducting the sale. The Court granted Gladstone's motion for summary judgment on the action to quiet title and dismissed FNMA's petition to set aside the tax sale. On appeal the Commonwealth Court reversed. The record showed that Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation serviced the mortgage loan to the Echeverrias in 2000. On March 31, 2000, Chase paid the tax collector that year's county and township taxes. On September 14, 2000, Chase paid the tax collector the 2000 school taxes. The Commonwealth Court concluded: [C]hase made a payment for county and township taxes for a tax year subsequent to the delinquency. The township tax collector, using common sense business practices, should have advised Chase that, despite that payment, a tax delinquency remained on the property. The township tax collector, in accordance with Section 605 of the Law, was required to furnish to the Bureau a record of the amount of all accrued taxes. This record would have reflected that county and township taxes were paid for the property for a year subsequent to the delinquency. The Bureau, having knowledge that taxes were paid for a subsequent year, should have made an inquiry of the township tax collector to determine whether there was a commercial entity assuming responsibility for taxes on the property. Because the Bureau failed to make this inquiry, we conclude that the Bureau did not use common sense business practices to determine the parties to whom notice should be given. Accordingly, we will reverse the order of the trial court. (Emphasis added.) In In re: Tax Claim Bureau, German Township, 64 Pa. Commw. 374 (1982), the Fayette County Tax Claim Bureau, on October 12, 1972, sold two tracts listed in the tax sale notice as owned or reputed to be owned by Mt. Sterling Fuel Company. Subsequently, the Bureau determined that on August 26, 1970, the two tracts together with another tract had been previously sold to George A. Solomon and George -9- 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM Teslovich. Solomon and Teslovich were not the registered owners of the two tracts at the time of the sale and there was nothing to indicate that they were in possession of the vacant property or that they were the reputed owners in the neighborhood. The trial court declared the tax sale invalid because Solomon and Teslovich did not receive required pre-sale notices. The record showed that the first tract in the 1970 conveyance was properly assessed in 1971 in the names of the new owners but The Commonwealth Court through oversight the second and third tract were not. stated: While it is not incumbent upon the Bureau to make an exhaustive search of current landowners, knowledge of the tax collector or of the county assessment office is chargeable to the Bureau. Here, the assessment office did reflect a change in ownership as to one tract in the conveyance..., a fact which should have alerted the Bureau to look at the ownership of the subject tracts. Thus, it appears that the Bureau made a mistake which it only recently discovered and now attempting to rectify. We hold that the Bureau's notices to [Mt. Sterling Fuel Company] do not satisfy the notice requirement of the Act. (Emphasis added.) In Sabbeth v. Tax Claim Bureau of Fulton County, 714 A.2d 514 (Pa. Commw. 1998), the Commonwealth Court stated that if all pre-sale statutory notice requirements have not been met a tax sale is valid only if the owners received actual notice of the sale. See also, Donofrio v. Northampton County Tax Claim Bureau, 811 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Commw. 2002). The Court stated in Sabbeth "[t]hat the definition of actual notice encompasses both expressed actual notice and implied actual notice...," and quoting Black's Law Dictionary stated: -10- 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM The term "actual notice," however, is generally given a wider meaning as embracing two classes, express and implied; the former includes all knowledge of a degree above that which depends upon collateral inference, or which imposes upon the party the further duty of inquiry; the latter imputes knowledge to the party because he is shown to be conscious of having the means of knowledge. In this sense actual notice is such notice as is positively proved to have been given to a party directly and personally, or such as he is presumed to have received personally because the evidence within his knowledge was sufficient to put him upon inquiry. DISCUSSION In the case sub judice, the timeline is: January 31, 2001 Default judgment by Eastern against mortgagors Torres and Malave. June 5, 2002 Original sheriff's sale date. August 1, 2002 Assignment of mortgage from Eastern to Parkton. September 4, 2002 Sheriff's sale to first mortgagee and executing creditor. September 18, 2002 Recording of assignment of mortgage from Eastern to Parkton. September 24, 2002 Sheriff's deed to Parkton. September 25, 2002 Recording of sheriff's deed to Parkton. September 26, 2002 Upset tax sale to Krulacs. December 2, 2002 Recording of deed from Tax Claim Bureau to Krulacs. -11- 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM The sheriff's sale extinguished the lien on 705 Erford Road of Eastern's mortgage that was assigned to Parkton, but it did not extinguish the priority tax lien? Parkton became the owner of the property as a result of the sheriff's sale. Had any competitive bidding occurred at the sale, the proceeds received in excess of the sheriff's costs would have been applied to the priority tax claim of the Tax Claim Bureau. On the cost only bid, the sheriff did not pay any money to the Tax Claim Bureau and did not request funds from the bidder to pay the tax claim. The facts here are distinguishable from those in Wells Fargo. Parkton, unlike Wells Fargo, was not the recorded owner of 705 Erford Road at any time when the notices, publication and posting were made within the time frames required in the Real Estate Tax Law. Unlike the facts in German Township, here there was no oversight in the assessment office that was chargeable to the Tax Claim Bureau. As to the law regarding knowledge of the property owner set forth in Sabbeth and Donofrio, although Parkton had knowledge of taxes owed to the Tax Claim Bureau as listed on the sheriff's schedule of distribution, it had no express actual knowledge of the tax sale on September 26, 2002, which was the day after its deed from the sheriff was recorded. It is inexplicable that Parkton, in purchasing 705 Erford Road at the sheriff sale 6 72 P.S. 5860.301; 53 P.S. 7102-7103. In contrast, properties sold at an upset sale are conveyed "subject to the lien of every recorded obligation, claim, lien, estate, mortgage, ground rent and Commonwealth tax lien not included in the upset price with which said property may have or shall become charged or for which it may become liable." 72 P.S. § 5860.609. -12- 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM following Eastern's unrecorded assignment to it of the defaulted mortgage, made no inquiry concerning the status of the taxes owed to the Tax Claim Bureau. Notwithstanding, having knowledge that taxes were owed and overdue does not equate into implied actual notice of the tax sale scheduled for September 26, 2002. The facts here are analogous to those in Gladstone. In Gladstone, a commercial mortgagor paid the mortgagee's taxes in a year subsequent to the year that there were unpaid taxes for which the property was sold. That triggered a responsibility on the Tax Claim Bureau to use common sense business practices to determine the parties to whom notice should be given. In the present case, no taxes for any intervening year were paid to the East Pennsboro tax collector. However, the Tax Claim Bureau was served with a Rule 3129.2 notice of the sheriff's sale scheduled for June 5, 2002. The Bureau did not check to determine if the property was sold by the sheriff before the upset sale to the Krulacs on September 26, 2002. The duty is on the Tax Claim Bureau to give notice of impending sales to owners. Clawson Appeal, supra. Publication and posting alone is not constitutionally sufficient if the name and address of the owner is reasonably ascertainable. Mennonite Board of Missions, supra. Parkton's address in Hunt Valley, Maryland, was certainly ascertainable in the sheriff's records. In the present case, even though Torres and Malave still occupied the property, and were the recorded owners until September 26, 2002, it was incumbent on the Tax Claim Bureau, having received notice of a pending sheriff sale -13- 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM for June 5, 2002, to use common sense business practices to make inquiry of the sheriff to determine if 705 Erford Road was sold prior to the upset sale on September 26, 2002. A check would have disclosed that the sale scheduled for June 5th, was continued to September 4th, and that the property was sold on September 4th, which was 22 days before the upset sale. Although the Tax Claim Bureau served all of the notices on the record owner within the time frames required by the Real Estate Tax Law, the Bureau was constitutionally required to give notice to any new owner if reasonably ascertainable, which Parkton was. Accordingly, we will (1) grant Parkton's petition to set aside the tax sale, (2) quiet title to the premises, and (3) order the Cumberland County Tax Claim Bureau to refund $7,268.74 to the Krulacs. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of October, 2003, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The petition of Parkton Enterprises, Inc., to proceed nunc pro tunc to set aside an upset tax sale, IS GRANTED. (2) The upset tax sale on September 26, 2002, at which the Cumberland County Tax Claim Bureau sold 705 Erford Road, East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, to David A. Krulac and Diane E. Krulac, IS SET ASIDE. (3) Title to 705 Erford Road, East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Cumberland County Tax Parcel No. 09-16-1050-166, IS QUIETED in Parkton Enterprises, Inc., under a deed from the Sheriff of Cumberland County dated -14- 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM September 24, 2002, and recorded September 25, 2002, in Cumberland County Deed Book 253, Page 3573. David A. Krulac and Diane E. Krulac, husband and wife, are forever barred from asserting any claim or interest in or to any portion of the premises inconsistent with the ownership of Parkton Enterprises, Inc. (4) The Cumberland County Tax Claim Bureau shall refund the sum of $7,268.74 to the Krulacs within thirty (30) days of any date this order shall become final and the Tax Claim Bureau receives payment from Parkton Enterprises, Inc., of all taxes, costs, and interest for calendar years 2000 and 2001. (5) A copy of this order and opinion may be recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County upon payment of the applicable fee. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. -15- 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM Kimberly A. DeWitt, Esquire Scott A. Dietterick, Esquire For Parkton Enterprises, Inc. Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire For David A. Krulac and Diane E. Krulac Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire For Cumberland County Tax Claim Bureau :sal -16- PARKTON ENTERPRISES, INC.,: PETITIONER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P E N N SYLVAN IA DAVID A. KRULAC and 02-4847 CIVIL TERM DIANE E. KRULAC, husband and: PETITION TO SET ASIDE TAX SALE wife, and CUMBERLAND COUNTY TAX CLAIM BUREAU, RESPONDENTS DAVID A. KRULAC and DIANE E. KRULAC, husband and wife, PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P E N N SYLVAN IA PARKTON ENTERPRISES, INC.,: 02-5973 CIVIL TERM DEFENDANT QUIET TITLE V. ORLANDO TORRES, JR. and ANAILDA MALAVE, DEFENDANTS IN RE: PETITION TO SET ASIDE TAX SALE AND ACTION TO QUIET TITLE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of October, 2003, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The petition of Parkton Enterprises, Inc., to proceed nunc pro tunc to set aside an upset tax sale, IS GRANTED. (2) The upset tax sale on September 26, 2002, at which the Cumberland County 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM Tax Claim Bureau sold 705 Erford Road, East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, to David A. Krulac and Diane E. Krulac, IS SET ASIDE. (3) Title to 705 Erford Road, East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Cumberland County Tax Parcel No. 09-16-1050-166, IS QUIETED in Parkton Enterprises, Inc., under a deed from the Sheriff of Cumberland County dated September 24, 2002, and recorded September 25, 2002, in Cumberland County Deed Book 253, Page 3573. David A. Krulac and Diane E. Krulac, husband and wife, are forever barred from asserting any claim or interest in or to any portion of the premises inconsistent with the ownership of Parkton Enterprises, Inc. (4) The Cumberland County Tax Claim Bureau shall refund the sum of $7,268.74 to the Krulacs within thirty (30) days of any date this order shall become final and the Tax Claim Bureau receives payment from Parkton Enterprises, Inc., of all taxes, costs, and interest for calendar years 2000 and 2001. (5) A copy of this order and opinion may be recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County upon payment of the applicable fee. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. 02-4847 CIVIL TERM 02-5973 CIVIL TERM Kimberly A. DeWitt, Esquire Scott A. Dietterick, Esquire For Parkton Enterprises, Inc. Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire For David A. Krulac and Diane E. Krulac Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire For Cumberland County Tax Claim Bureau :sal