J. Collins v. Delaware County TCB - Tax Sale Notice Challenge

Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Wojcik](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10840750/j-collins-jcv-irvin-v-delaware-county-tcb-g-leroy/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 10, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

J. Collins & J.C.V. Irvin v. Delaware County TCB & G. Leroy

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 703 C.D. 2024
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Wojcik

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (23)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by Wojcik

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jealdine Collins and :
Jeallina C.V. Irvin, :
:
Appellants :
:
v. : No. 703 C.D. 2024
: Submitted: October 9, 2025
Delaware County Tax Claim :
Bureau and Guy Leroy :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: April 10, 2026

Jealdine Collins (Collins) and Jeallina C.V. Irvin (Irvin) (collectively,
Appellants), appeal from the April 24, 2024 Order of the Court of Common Pleas of
Delaware County (trial court) denying their objections to the Delaware County Tax
Claim Bureau’s (Bureau) sale of a vacant lot located at 0 Longacre Boulevard,
Lansdowne, Pennsylvania (Property). Before this Court, Appellants challenge the
sufficiency of the Bureau’s notice of its September 2023 upset tax sale held pursuant
to the Real Estate Tax Sale Law (RETSL).1 We affirm.
By way of background, the Bureau sold Appellants’ Property to Guy
Leroy at its September 2023 tax sale due to Appellants’ delinquent taxes for the 2021
tax year. Appellants filed timely objections thereto on November 6, 2023, arguing
that the Bureau failed to comply with RETSL’s notice requirements under Sections

1
Act of July 7, 1947, P.L. 1368, as amended, 72 P.S. §§5860.101-5860.803.
602 and 607.1(a), 72 P.S. §5860.602-607a(a). Notably, the Property is adjoined to
1216 Longacre Boulevard, Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, where Collins and Irvin
reside. That property too was exposed to an upset tax sale and sold to Guy Leroy in
September 2023. The objection to that sale was docketed separately before the trial
court such that it is now the subject of a separate appeal filed in this Court. See
Collins v. Delaware County Tax Claim Bureau (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 702 C.D. 2024,
Notice of Appeal filed June 4, 2024).
The trial court held a hearing on both matters on March 12, 2024.
Therein, as it concerned the Property, the Bureau offered the testimony of Jeanine
Heinlein and a tax claim file for the Property. Pertinent now, Heinlein explained
that, in 2022, the Bureau sent a notice of return and claim addressed to Collins and
Irvin at their residence at 1216 Longacre Boulevard. Trial Court’s Hearing, 3/12/24,
Notes of Testimony (N.T.) at 8-9. The notice of return and claim, however, was
assigned “CV-19” because of the COVID-19 global pandemic.2 Id.; see also
Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 68a-69a. As such, Heinlein testified that the Bureau
posted notice of return and claim at the Property on December 2, 2022. Trial Court’s
Hearing, N.T. at 9; see also R.R. at 70a. To demonstrate the Bureau’s strict
compliance with Section 602 of RETSL, the Bureau provided proof of its notice of
upset tax sale by publication, posting, certified mailing, and 10-day notice. See, e.g.,
Trial Court’s Hearing, N.T. at 10-12.

2
Our review of the Reproduced Record indicates that the postal carrier notated “IRVIN”
in the signature line, likely to conform with United States Postal Service Guidance. See, e.g.,
https://about.usps.com/newsroom/service-alerts/pdf/usps-continuity-of-operations-03-20-
2020.pdf (last visited April 9, 2026).
2
In an order dated April 24, 2024,3 the trial court denied Appellants’
objections to the Bureau’s upset tax sale. In a subsequent Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925(a) opinion dated July 30, 2024, the trial court summarily
explained that it found Heinlein’s testimony to be credible and that the Bureau had
strictly complied with RETSL’s Section 602 notice requirements. Although the trial
court did not opine on Appellants’ Section 607 challenge, the trial court nevertheless
advised that it did not err in determining the Bureau’s upset tax sale should not have
been set aside.
Before this Court,4,5 Appellants concede that the Bureau strictly
complied with its notice of upset tax sale requirements under Section 602. See
Appellants’ Brief at 12 (“In the present case, Ms. Collins and Ms. Irvin do not
dispute the [] Bureau’s attempted compliance with the Section 602 notice
requirements.”). Appellants instead focus their appeal on the Bureau’s purported
failure to undertake additional notification efforts under Section 607.1(a) of RETSL
where the Bureau’s March 22, 2022 notice of return and claim was assigned “CV-
19.” Id. at 13-18.

3
The trial court amended its order on May 14, 2024, for the purpose of correcting the parcel
number it had identified in its April 24, 2024 order.

4
“Our review in tax sale cases is ‘limited to determining whether the trial court abused its
discretion, clearly erred as a matter of law[,] or rendered a decision with a lack of supporting
evidence.’” In re Consolidated Reports and Return by the Tax Claims Bureau of Northumberland
County of Properties, 132 A.3d 637, 643 n.12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (Appeal of Neff).

5
As we have explained, matters involving upset tax sales implicate due process because of
the government’s taking of one’s property. Appeal of Neff, 132 A.3d at 644; Tracy v. Chester
County Tax Claim Bureau, 489 A.2d 1334, 1339 (Pa. 1985) (“[I]t is a momentous event . . . when
a government subjects a citizen’s property to forfeiture for the non-payment of taxes.”). Given the
seriousness of such a taking, we are inclined to note our dissatisfaction with the Bureau and Leroy
for failing to file briefs in this Court. See Commonwealth Court 6/20/25 Order.
3
At bottom, here, Appellants have confused the operative provisions of
RETSL and the various notices required of the Bureau. As we have explained, “[t]he
General Assembly enacted separate procedures for challenging the underlying tax
claims giving rise to tax sales and the validity of the tax sales themselves.” Zelno v.
Lyons, 245 A.3d 1185, 1186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021). The former is governed by Article
III of RETSL, see 72 P.S. §§5860.301-5860.316, while the latter is governed by
Article VI, id. §§5860.601-5860.642.
To the extent Appellants now rely on Section 607.1(a) of RETSL, that
provision states in pertinent part:

When any notification of a pending tax sale or a tax sale
subject to court confirmation is required to be mailed to
any owner, mortgagee, lienholder or other person or entity
whose property interests are likely to be significantly
affected by such tax sale, and such mailed notification is
either returned without the required receipted
personal signature of the addressee or under other
circumstances raising a significant doubt as to the
actual receipt of such notification by the named
addressee or is not returned or acknowledged at all, then,
before the tax sale can be conducted or confirmed, the
bureau must exercise reasonable efforts to discover the
whereabouts of such person or entity and notify him.
72 P.S. §5860.607a(a) (emphasis added). Thus, a tax claim bureau’s obligation to
undertake additional reasonable notification efforts is only triggered when a notice
of a pending tax sale under Section 602 is, for example, returned without signature.
As indicated, however, the notice returned “CV-19” was not a notice of
pending tax sale. It was a Section 308(a) notice of return and claim relating to the
underlying tax claim itself. In relevant part, Section 308(a) provides:

Not later than the thirty-first day of July of each year, the
bureau shall give only one notice of the return of said taxes
and the entry of such claim in one envelope for each
4
delinquent taxable property, by United States registered
mail or United States certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, addressed to the owners at the
same address listed on the form returned by the tax
collector for taxes that are delinquent. . . . If no post
office address of the owner is known or if a notice
mailed to an owner at such last known post office
address is not delivered by the postal authorities, then
notice as herein provided shall be posted on the
property affected . . . .
72 P.S. §5860.308(a).6
Because this is a distinct procedure under RETSL, however, the notice
being returned “CV-19” did not trigger any additional notification procedures under
Section 607.1(a) of RETSL. Rather, it required the Bureau to post its notice of return
and claim at Appellants’ Property. But as indicated by Heinlein’s testimony, which
was accepted as credible by the trial court, the Bureau did so. Trial Court’s Hearing,
N.T. at 9; see also R.R. at 70a.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

6
Notably, once a tax claim becomes absolute, a delinquent taxpayer may only seek to
reopen the claim on the basis of payment or failure to receive such notice under Section 314(e) of
RETSL, 72 P.S. §314(e), i.e., the taxpayer can no longer challenge the amount in controversy. See
also Zelno, 245 A.3d at 1186-87 (holding the remedy prescribed under Section 314 of RETSL is
exclusive thereto).
5
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jealdine Collins and :
Jeallina C.V. Irvin, :
:
Appellants :
:
v. : No. 703 C.D. 2024
:
Delaware County Tax Claim :
Bureau and Guy Leroy :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 10th day of April, 2026, the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Delaware County (trial court), dated April 24, 2024, and amended
May 14, 2024, is AFFIRMED.

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge