HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-5973 civil appeal]-A35008-00
IN RE: SALE OF PROPERTY OF PVT
ENTERPRISES
APPEAL OF: ELAM AND MARY REIFF,
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PEN NSYLVANIA
No. 290 MDA 2000
Appeal from the Order Entered December 10, 1999
In the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division
Cumberland County, No. 98-5973
BEFORE' JOHNSON, TODD, and TAMILIA,
MEMORANDUM'
Elam and Mary Reiff appeal the December 10, 1999 Order of the
Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas denying their petition for relief.
We affirm.
We note initially that it was within this Court's discretion to transfer
this case to the Commonwealth Court, as the Commonwealth Court has
jurisdiction over "[a]ll actions or proceedings.., where is drawn in question
the application, interpretation or enforcement of any: (A) statute regulating
the affairs of political subdivisions, municipality and other local
authorities.... 42 Pa.C.S.A § 762(4)(i)(A).~
~ In Donaldson v. Ritenour, 512 A.2d 686 (Pa. Super. 1986), a case which
involved the interpretation of the notice requirement under 72 P.S.
§ 5860.102, this Court held that cases involving the interpretation of the
Real Estate Tax Law must be transferred to Commonwealth Court, stating:
we believe the Commonwealth Court's greater expertise in the
issues raised here make transfer to that court appropriate.
Moreover, transfer [of] this case will prevent unnecessary
confusion and lack of coordination, since Commonwealth Court
will be the forum for similar cases in this.., area of the law...
Id. at 687 (quoting Eldred Twp, v. Monroe County, 478 A.2d 1357, 1358
(Pa. Super. 1984) (citations omitted)).
]-A35008-00
However, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 704 gives an appellate court in which a
matter erroneously has been filed discretion to dispose of the matter, absent
a timely objection. See Commonwealth v. Sudler, 496 Pa. 295, 436 A.2d
1376 (1981). Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy, we will rule on
the instant case.
The facts of the case have been accurately summarized by the trial
court:
PVT Enterprises Partnership was~-'.'the owner of an
apartment building at 24 Hollar Avenue in the Borough of
Shippensburg, Cumberland County. The taxes were not paid
and the property was scheduled for a tax sale by the
Cumberland County Tax Claim Bureau. On September 28, 1998,
the property was sold to Elam Reiff and Mary Reiff for the upset
price of $18,632.33. With transfer tax and recording fees the
total amount paid by the Reiffs was $20,321.30. On
November 20, 1998, PVT Enterprises Partnership filed objections
and exceptions to the tax sale. Elam Reiff and Mary Reiff
intervened. The issue raised by PVT Enterprises Partnership was
whether it had been provided with proper legal notice of the
sale. Following a hearing, an order was entered on August 16,
1999, supported by a written opinion, dismissing the objections
and exceptions to the tax sale. No appeal was filed from that
order.
On October 1, 1999, Elam Reiff and Mary Reiff filed a
"Petition for refund of incorrect upset sale price." Petitioners
allege that they were the only bidders for 24 Hollar Avenue at
the tax sale on September 28, 1998; they bid and paid the
publicly announced upset sale price and all costs for a total of
$20,321.30; that the amount of taxes owed on the property
were incorrectly calculated; and the upset price should have
been $9,263.33 if the taxes had been correctly calculated. The
Reiffs averred that as a result of the announced incorrect upset
price they paid $9,370 more for the property than warranted for
which they seek a refund.
(Trial Court Opinion, 12/10/99, at 1-2.)
-2-
]-A35008-00
The trial court entered a rule against the Cumberland County Tax
Claim Bureau ("Tax Bureau") and PVT Enterprises Partnership ("PVT") to
show cause why the relief requested should not be granted, and ultimately
denied the Reiffs' petition for relief. ]In doing so, the trial court
acknowledged that the Tax Bureau set the upset price pursuant to the
authority granted to it by Section 5860.605 of the Real Estate Tax Law,2
72 P.S. § 5860.101 et. seq., and that proceeds from a tax sale be
distributed as follows:
Section 5860.605 provides:
The bureau shall fix as the upset price to be realized at the sale of
any property upon a claim absolute, the sum of (a) the tax liens of
the Commonwealth, (b) the amount of the claim absolute and
interest thereon on which the sale is being held, (c) the amount of
any other tax claim or tax judgment due on such property and
interest on the judgment to the date of sale, (d) the amount of all
accrued taxes including taxes levied for the current year, whether
or not returned, a record of which shall be furnished to the bureau
by tax collectors, receivers of taxes and taxing districts, (e) the
amount of the municipal claims against the property, and (f) the
record costs and costs of sale, including pro rata costs of the
publication of notice and costs of mail and posted notices in
connection with the return of the claim and mail and posted notices
of sale ....
No sale of property shall be made by the bureau unless a bid equal
to the upset price is made. If no bid equal to the upset price is
received, the sale shall be continued without further advertisement
in order to give the bureau a chance to sell the property at private
sale, or to petition court for an order to sell the same, freed and
discharged of all liens as hereinafter provided. No upset sale may
be continued beyond the end of the calendar year, and no property
may be sold at private sale or judicial sale unless the property has
first been exposed to upset sale and was not sold at upset sale.
72 P.S. § 5860.605.
-3-
]-A35008-00
(1) First, to the Commonwealth, by payment to the State
Treasurer through the Department of Revenue, for
satisfaction of tax liens of the Commonwealth only if the
total amount of such liens or such portion thereof have
been included in the purchase price and paid by the
purchaser or the property is sold at judicial sale pursuant
to this act.
(2) Second, to the respective taxing districts in proportion to
the taxes due them.
(3) Third, to taxing districts or municipal authorities for
satisfaction of municipal claims.
(4) Fourth, to mortgagees and other lien holders, in order of
their priority, for satisfaction of mortgages and liens as
they may appear of record, whethe~-'0r not discharged by
the sale.
(5) Fifth, to the owner of the property.
72 P.S. § 5860.205(d). The court further concluded that because the Reiffs
did not take objections or exception to the sale, and because the objections
and exceptions filed by PVT were overruled, Section 5860.607(d) requires
that a decree of absolute confirmation be entered by the court. 3
3 Section 5860.607(d) provides:
Any objections or exceptions to such a sale may question the
regularity or legality of the proceedings of the bureau in respect
to such sale, but may not raise the legality of the taxes on which
the sale was held, of the return by the tax collector to the
bureau or of the claim entered. In case any objections or
exceptions are filed they shall be disposed of according to the
practice of the court. If the same are overruled or set aside, a
decree of absolute confirmation shall be entered by the court.
72 P.S. § 5860.607(d).
-4-
]-A35008-00
In this appeal, the Reiffs contend that a refund of the amount which
they paid in excess of the correct upset sale price is permitted under
Sections 5860.205(e) and 5860.617 of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law.4
4 Section 5860.205(e) provides:
Prior to the actual distribution required by [subsection (d)], the
bureau shall petition the court of common pleas for a
confirmation of distribution. The petition shall set forth a
proposed schedule of distribution for each account and shall
request the court to issue a rule to show cause on each
distributee why the court should not confirm the distribution as
proposed. The rule to show cause and a copy of the petition shall
be served by first class mail upon each distributee and upon the
purchaser, with proof of mailing to the last residence or place of
business of the distributee known to the bureau and to the
purchaser at the address given to the bureau. If the rule to
show cause is not returned by any distributee or purchaser on or
before the time set for its return, the court shall forthwith
confirm the distribution absolutely. If any distributee or
purchaser makes a return of the rule within the time set by the
court, the court shall forthwith hear any objections and
exceptions to the proposed distribution and thereafter adjust the
schedule of distribution as it deems just and equitable according
to law and confirm the distribution absolutely as adjusted. An
absolute confirmation of distribution by the court shall be final
and nonappealable with respect to all distributees listed in the
petition.
72 P.S. § 5860.205(e).
Section 5860.617 provides:
When a property has been sold under the provisions of this act,
and there are errors in the description or in the spelling of any
person's name, or other obvious errors in the claim, or in the
return to court, or in any petition relative to the proceedings, or
in the bureau's tax deed, such error may be amended by a
petition to court for a rule on all parties interested to show cause
why the records should not be amended and such errors
corrected. After hearing on the rule, the court may make such
order relative thereto as to it seems just and proper.
72 P.S. § 5860.617.
-5-
]-A35008-00
While the Reiffs make a compelling equitable argument, we have found
no controlling caselaw supporting their position, and the Reiffs cite to none.
We therefore conclude that there is no legal basis on which to afford them
relief. Moreover, after an independent review of the record, the parties'
briefs, and the applicable law, we find that the well-reasoned opinion of the
trial court appropriately and sufficiently addresses the issues raised by the
Reiffs in their appeal. Accordingly, we rely on the December 10, 1999
Opinion of the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley; ac-copy of which is attached
hereto,
Order affirmed.
Pr(
lent Enter .~~
~onotary
Date:
-6-