HYMY PM, LLC v. Delaware County TCB & Nelson Cruz, LLC - Tax Sale Notice

Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Cohn Jubelirer](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10839238/hymy-pm-llc-v-delaware-county-tcb-nelson-cruz-llc/#o1) The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

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 8, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

HYMY PM, LLC v. Delaware County TCB & Nelson Cruz, LLC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 604 C.D. 2024
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Cohn Jubelirer

• Opinion

• Authorities (13)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (32.4K)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by [Renee Cohn Jubelirer](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8207/renee-cohn-jubelirer/)

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HYMY PM, LLC :
:
v. : No. 604 C.D. 2024
: Submitted: October 7, 2025
Delaware County Tax Claim Bureau :
and Nelson Cruz, LLC :
:
Appeal of: Nelson Cruz, LLC :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: April 8, 2026

Nelson Cruz, LLC (Purchaser) appeals from an Order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Delaware County (common pleas), which set aside an upset tax
sale on the basis that the Delaware County Tax Claim Bureau (Bureau) did not
exercise reasonable efforts to locate the record owner, HYMY PM, LLC (Taxpayer),
after notices of the sale were returned as undeliverable. Purchaser challenges the
sufficiency of Taxpayer’s Petition to Set Aside Upset Tax Sale (Petition) and asserts
its due process rights were violated because the Petition did not identify the basis of
the alleged notice deficiency. Based upon common pleas’ well-reasoned opinion,
we affirm.
The subject of this appeal is a vacant, commercial property located at 1100-
1108 Chester Avenue, Yeadon, Delaware County (Property). The Property was
owned by Taxpayer since 2019. It was listed for upset tax sale for delinquent taxes
and was sold to Purchaser on September 21, 2023. On November 1, 2023, Taxpayer
filed the Petition, asserting, in relevant part:

1. [Taxpayer] only received notice of the sale afterwards on or about
   October 25, 202[31], by certified mail letter sent by the Bureau.

2. [The] Bureau failed to serve [Taxpayer] as owner of the [P]roperty
   with notice of the sale as required.

(Petition ¶¶ 5-6, Reproduced Record at 2a.)
A hearing was scheduled, at which Taxpayer, Purchaser, and the Bureau were
represented by counsel.2 At the hearing, Taxpayer stipulated the publication and
posting of the Property were proper. (Id. at 15a.) Taxpayer, however, asserted that
notice was not proper under Section 602 of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law (RETSL).3
Hyung Park, owner and sole shareholder of Taxpayer, testified that when the store
located on the Property was open, mail from the Bureau was received at the
Property’s address, but the address was changed in August 2023, after the store
closed. (Id. at 20a-22a.) Taxpayer introduced an August 9, 2023 email to the Bureau
reflecting the change in address to 42 Southwood Drive, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
(Id. at 45a-47a.) Taxpayer also presented copies of a notice concerning the tax sale
sent on July 21, 2023, to the Property’s address, and the accompanying envelope
that was returned and marked “vacant” and “unable to forward.” (Id. at 19a-20a,
41a-44a.) Park further testified he called the Bureau since he had not received taxes
and paid the 2022 and 2023 taxes. (Id. at 23a.) In support, Taxpayer submitted a

1
This appears to be a typographical error given the testimony and documentary evidence
presented.
2
The Bureau took no position at the hearing and did not file a brief before this Court.
3
Act of July 7, 1947, P.L. 1368, as amended, 72 P.S. § 5860.602.

2
printout obtained from the Bureau’s file, with a handwritten statement “Paid County
tax 8-16-23—via Lockbox,” and “Date mailing address was changed per request of
owner,” with an arrow pointing to an August 9, 2023, date. (Id. at 24a-25a, 48a.)
Park further testified he first learned of the sale after receiving a letter at the new
mailing address in New Jersey that he previously provided. (Id. at 25a, 49a.)
By Order exited April 9, 2024, common pleas granted the Petition and set
aside the sale, concluding the “Bureau knew the exact and correct mailing address
of [Taxpayer] and did not make any effort to contact [Taxpayer] at this address.”
(Id. at 59a.) Purchaser filed a timely Notice of Appeal.
On appeal,4 Purchaser argues its procedural due process rights were violated
when the sale was set aside because the Petition did not put Purchaser on notice as
to what notice deficiencies were alleged. According to Purchaser, the Petition only
vaguely asserted Taxpayer had not been served with notice of the sale. In
Purchaser’s view, this relates to the Bureau’s obligations under Section 601(a)(3) of
the RETSL, 72 P.S. § 5860.601(a)(3), which is only applicable to owner-occupied
properties, not vacant, commercial properties, such as this. Purchaser also points to
Section 602(h) of the RETSL, which provides that “[n]o sale shall be defeated and
no title to property sold shall be invalidated because of proof that mail notice as
herein required was not received by the owner, provided such notice was given as
[prescribed] by this [S]ection.” (Purchaser’s Brief (Br.) at 10 (quoting 72 P.S.
§ 5860.602(h)).) Purchaser requests the Court remand the matter for common pleas
to conduct an evidentiary hearing on whether the Bureau complied with the RETSL.

4
In a tax sale case, the Court’s review “is limited to determining whether the trial court
abused its discretion, erred as a matter of law, or rendered a decision not supported by substantial
evidence.” In re Balaji Invs., LLC, 148 A.3d 507, 509 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016).

3
Taxpayer responds that common pleas properly set the upset tax sale aside as
“[t]he Bureau failed to use even the bare minimum effort to find [Taxpayer] to
effectuate notice as required by” Sections 602 and 607(a) of the RETSL, 72 P.S.
§§ 5860.602, 5860.607(a). (Taxpayer’s Br. at 5.) Taxpayer asserts the Petition
alleged the Bureau did not serve Taxpayer as the RETSL required and that the
Taxpayer only received notice via certified letter after the sale occurred. Taxpayer
argues the Petition rebutted the presumption of regularity, and the Bureau bore the
initial burden to establish strict compliance with the RETSL. The Bureau put forth
no such evidence. Thus, Taxpayer asks the Court to affirm common pleas’ Order
setting aside the sale.
Upon careful review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the law, we
conclude the appellate issues have been ably resolved in the thorough and well-
reasoned opinion of the late Judge Barry C. Dozor filed pursuant to Pennsylvania
Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) (Rule 1925(a) Opinion).
See HYMY PM, LLC v. Del. Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau (C.C.P. Del. Cnty., No. CV-
2023-009308, filed July 1, 2024). Therefore, we adopt common pleas’ Rule 1925(a)
Opinion, which is appended hereto, and affirm common pleas’ Order.

---

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

4
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HYMY PM, LLC :
:
v. : No. 604 C.D. 2024
:
Delaware County Tax Claim Bureau :
and Nelson Cruz, LLC :
:
Appeal of: Nelson Cruz, LLC :

ORDER

NOW, April 8, 2026, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware
County, entered in the above-captioned matter, is AFFIRMED.

---

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
IN THE COURT OF COMMONPLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION

HYMY PM LLC
Plaintiff/Appellee : NO: CV- 2023-009308
v. 604 CD 2024

DELAWARE COUNTY TAX CLAIM : Premises: 1100-1108 Chester Avenue,
BUREAU Yeadon, PA 19050
Defendant/Appellee

NELSON CRUZ LLC : FOLIO 48-00-00772-00
Respondent /Appellant
Kevin McGarrey, Esquire, for Plaintiff/Appellee
Sherri Eyer, Esquire, for Defendant/Appellee Delaware County Tax Claim Bureau
Michael P. Dignazio, Esquire for Nelson Cruz LLC/Respondent/Appellant

OP I N I O N

Dozor, J. July I ,S +- 2024
NATURE AND HISTORY OF THE CASE:

This is an Appeal from the Court's April 8, 2024 Order1 which granted the Petition

to Set Aside Upset Tax Sale of the Premises 1100-1108 Chester Avenue, Yeadon,

Delaware County, Pennsylvania 19050 FOLIO 48-00-00772-00, that was filed on

November 1, 2023 by Plaintiff (hereinafter "Appellee") naming both Defendant Delaware

County Tax Claim Bureau and Respondent Nelson Cruz, LLC (hereinafter "Appellant"),

who was the purchaser of the Property, in the Petition. The nature and history of this

case is as follows:

Appellee was the record owner of the property, 1100-1108 Chester Avenue,

Yeadon, Delaware County, Pennsylvania 19050 FOLIO 48-00-00772-00, (hereinafter the

1 This Court notes that the Order was dated by the Order on April 8, 2024 and sent to all Counsel by
Chambers as is Chambers' custom. This Court also notes that the Delaware County Office of Judicial
Support did not Docket this Order and send the Rule 236 Notice until April 9, 2024.

Page 1 of 11
"Property''). Respondent/Appellant, Nelson Cruz, LLC was the highest bidder at the Upset

Tax Sale and was the owner of the Property at the time of the Hearing on the underlying

Petition.

Appellee had owned the Property in question, 1100-1108 Chester Avenue,

Yeadon, Delaware County, Pennsylvania 19050 FOLIO 48-00-00772-00, which was a

commercial Property. As a result of an alleged unresolved delinquency, Appellee, the Tax

Claim Bureau the Property proceeded to Upset Tax Sale on September 21, 2023 and was

purchased by Appellant.

On November 1, 2023 Appellee filed the Petition to Set Aside the Upset Tax Sale ,

which was not Answered by Appellant/Intervenor, despite Counsel having filed an Entry

of Appearance within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the Petition.

The Petition to Set Aside the Upset Tax Sale was originally scheduled a Hearing

on February 2, 2024; however, it was continued and the Hearing on the outstanding

Petition to Set Aside Upset Tax Sale was held by the undersigned on April 2, 2024

On April 2, 2024, the Court held a Hearing on the matter, took the case under

advisement, received Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from the parties

and thereafter issued an Order Granting the Petition to Set Aside the Upset Tax Sale on

April 8, 2024.

On April 25, 2024, Respondent/Appellant filed the underlying Appeal and on May

15, 20242 , this Court issued an Order Requiring a Concise Statement of Matters

2 This Court notes that this Order was not docketed by the Office of Judicial Support until June 5, 2024.

Page 2 of 11
Complained of on Appeal. On May 24, 2024 Appellant filed his Concise Statement of

Matters Complained of on Appeal, raising the following allegations of error:

1. The Petition to Set Aside Upset Tax Sale does not assert any failure by the Tax
   Claim Bureau to properly publish, post, or mail Notice of Sale as required by
   Section 602 of the Pennsylvania Real Estate Tax Sales Law. 72 P.S. § 5860.602

2. The Petition to Set Aside Upset Tax Sale asserts only that the Tax Claim Bureau
   failed to personally serve Notice of Sale upon the Petitioner whose testimony
   confirmed that he was never a resident in the subject property, a commercial
   building.

3. The presumption of regularity which attaches to tax sales cannot be overcome
   by a pleading which fails to assert any violation of 72 P.S. § 5960. 6023
   whatsoever.

FACTS:

Appellee HYMY PM LLC was the record owner of the property. At the Hearing on

the Petition to Set Aside the Upset Tax Sale, Appellee record owner stipulated to the

publication and positing of the property. The only objection was the Section 602 mailing

was not done. During the Hearing, the Court heard the testimony of Young Park, the

owner and sole shareholder of HYMY PM LLC. Mr. Park through Appellee purchased the

Property in 2019, a commercial property, for $315,000 and there was a mortgage on the

Property. At the time of the Hearing, the Property was vacant. Mr. Park testified that at

the time the Property was purchased, it was occupied; however, the store closed during

COVID. Mr. Park further testified that when the store was open, the mail from the

Delaware County Tax Claim Bureau was received at the Property's address; however, the

3 The Court notes that this Section cited by Appellant must be a typographically error as that
section does not exist. Therefore, the Court will analyze the issue using 72 P.S. Section 5860.602.

Page 3 of 11
closure, the address was changed to another address on August 9, 2023. See Plaintiff's

Exhibits, P-4 and P-5.

Mr. Park testified and the evidence presented confirms that on August 16, 2023,

the taxes were paid on "8/16/23 via lockbox." See Plaintiff's Exhibit, P-5. Appellee credibly

testified that he only became aware the Property sold at the September 22, 2023 Upset

Tax Sale when he received the letter in the mail, to the new mailing address. See also

Plaintiff's Exhibit, P-6.

DISCUSSION:

In proceeding to an Upset Tax Sale, the Tax Claim Bureau is bound to follow the

rules of the Pennsylvania Real Estate Tax Sale Law (RETSL). Title 72 Pennsylvania Statute

Annotated Section 5860.602 lays out the rules for Notice of Sale. The purpose of the

RETSL is "for the collection of taxes and is not intended to create investment

opportunities for others, or to strip taxpayers of their properties." Brodhead Creek

Assocs., LLC v. Cty. of Monroe, 231 A.3d 69 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020) citing Jenkins

v. Fayette County Tax Claim Bureau, 176 A.3d 1038, 1043 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). The

Appellate Courts have continually held that, the Real Estate Tax Sale Law's "notice

provisions are to be strictly construed, and... strict compliance with such provisions is

necessary to guard against deprivation of property without due process." Donofrio v.

Northampton Cty. Tax Claim Bureau, 811 A.2d 1120, 1122 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).

Page 4 of 11
With respect to Upset Tax Sales, the Tax Claim Bureau is required to give three

(3) separate types of notice to the owners of the property for sale:

publication at least 30 days prior to the sale; notification to the owner
by certified mail at least 30 days prior to the sale; and posting of the
property at least ten days prior to the sale.

Citimortgage, Inc. v. KOR Investments, LLP, 954 A.2d 755, 758 (Pa.Cmwlth.

2008) citing Wells Fargo Bank of Minnesota v. Tax Claim Bureau of Monroe

County, 817 A.2d 1196, 1198 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003). The decisions of the Appellate Courts

are clear that "[i]f any of the three types of notice is defective, the tax sale is void." Id.

Furthermore, the Tax Claim Bureau has the burden of proving strict compliance with the

applicable notice provisions. In the Matter of the 2005 Sale of Real Estate by the

Clinton County Tax Claim Bureau, 915 A.2d 719, 724 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007). Courts

must balance the Pennsylvania Real Estate Tax Sale Law's purpose and the protection

of property owner's rights with the critical issue of maintenance of the efficiency of our

governmental systems, or the system will not work for anyone. There is a difference

between strict compliance with the Pennsylvania Real Estate Tax Sale Law's notice

requirements and going far above and beyond what is reasonable in any one case.

This Court notes that Appellant initially argues that Appellee in his Petition to set

Aside, failed to specify the grounds or section upon which notice was deficient and

therefore, Appellant could not cognizably ascertain that reason and could not defend the

sale. This Court determines that this issue is of no merit. A clear review of the Petition to

Set Aside demonstrated to the undersigned that Appellee raised the issue of Notice in

paragraphs five (5) and six (6) wherein Appellee alleges that he only received Notice of

Page 5 of 11
the Sale via certified mail after the sale occurred. This Court also notes that the Petition

to Set Aside was filed less than a week after that certified mail was sent to Appellee. This

Court notes that while Appellee might not have cited to the specific subsections or listed

how many types of notices were deficient; nevertheless, the Petition to Set Aside clearly

demonstrated to the Tax Claim Bureau and Appellant that the "notice" requirement was

deficient. This Court held a Hearing on the matter and Appellant was provided notice of

what deficiencies were being pursued and which were conceded and this Court would

have granted a continuation of the Hearing should it have been required or requested by

any Counsel to sufficiently defend the allegations of deficient notice.

Moreover, the Appellate Courts have consistently held that when a tax payer, such

as the Appellee here, has filed exceptions to a tax sale, this filing, rebuts

the presumption of regularity, putting the initial burden on the tax claim bureau to show

that it strictly complied with the notice requirements of the Tax Sale Law. Gutierrez v.

Washington Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 260 A.3d 291, 295 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021);

Famageltto v. County of Erie Tax Claim Bureau, 133 A.3d 337, 348 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2016). This case law rebuts the allegation of Appellant that the presumption of regularity

is not overcome by the pleadings of exceptions, the Petition to Set Aside Upset Tax Sale,

filed by Appellee. Therefore, this allegation has no merit and the Appeal should be

dismissed.

In Appellant's final allegation of error, Appellant argues that Appellee only asserts

failure of the Tax Claim Bureau to personally serve Notice of the Sale4, and that since he

4
This Court notes that Appellee conceded during the Hearing that the Property was empty, that
publication was properly made, and the posting was properly done.

Page 6 of 11
was not a resident of the Property but merely a record owner of the commercial property

in question, personal service was not necessary. Appellant argued that under Section 601

the notice is limited to owner occupiers which is not applicable because this is a

commercial property and that in this case Section 602(h) applies. This Court notes that

the Pennsylvania Real Estate Tax Sale Law does provide specific notice requirements for

owner occupied property as to the date of the sale. Section 5860.601 specifically states

as follows:

(3) No owner-occupied property may be sold unless the bureau has
given the owner occupant written notice of such sale at least ten
(10) days prior to the date of actual sale by personal service by the
sheriff or his deputy or person deputized by the sheriff for this
purpose unless the county commissioners, by resolution, appoint a
person or persons to make all personal services required by this
clause. The sheriff or his deputy shall make a return of service to the
bureau, or the persons appointed by the county commissioners in
lieu of the sheriff or his deputy shall file with the bureau written proof
of service, setting forth the name of the person served, the date and
time and place of service, and attach a copy of the notice which was
served. If such personal notice cannot be served within twenty-five
(25) days of the request by the bureau to make such personal
service, the bureau may petition the court of common pleas to waive
the requirement of personal notice for good cause shown. Personal
service of notice on one of the owners shall be deemed personal
service on all owners.

72 P.S. § 5860.601

The notice requirements of Section 5860.602 remain and are mandatory and must

be strictly construed. In re Sale of Real Estate by Lackawanna County Tax Claim

Bureau, 255 A.3d 619, 628 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021). Appellant alleges that only Section

Page 7 of 11
5860(h), is specifically applicable because the property was owned by a corporation,

states:

(h) In case the property of any corporation, limited partnership or
joint-stock association is advertised for sale, the bureau shall give
to the Department of Revenue, at least thirty (30) days prior to
the date of the scheduled sale, notice of the sale by certified mail
on a form provided by the Department of Revenue which shall
set forth (1) the name and address of the bureau, (2) the date of
the sale, (3) the name and address of each corporation, limited
partnership or joint-stock association, if any, whose property is
scheduled for sale and (4) the total number of corporations,
limited partnerships and joint-stock associations whose
properties are scheduled for sale. Upon receipt of the notice and
at least seven (7) days before the date of sale listed on the notice,
the Department of Revenue shall mail to the bureau, by certified
mail, a proof of claim for payment of Commonwealth taxes which
are accorded priority by section 1401 of the act of April 9, 1929
(P.L. 343, No. 176), known as "The Fiscal Code."1 The bureau
shall include in the upset sale price of each said property the
amount of Commonwealth taxes set forth on the proof of claim
received from the Department of Revenue. If the bureau complies
with the notice of provisions of this section and the Department
of Revenue fails to mail to the bureau, at least seven (7) days
before the date of sale listed on said notice by verification by the
postmark, by certified mail, the proof of claim required by this
section, the lien upon said property shall be forever discharged
and divested, notwithstanding any other provision of this act or
other law to the contrary. If the bureau does not receive a reply
from the Department of Revenue prior to the scheduled date of
the sale, it shall be the duty of the bureau to contact the
department to determine if such reply was mailed. The bureau
may then opt to reschedule the sale if circumstances warrant. No
owner shall attack the validity of any sale on the basis that the
bureau failed to give the notice required by this section.

No sale shall be defeated and no title to property sold shall be
invalidated because of proof that mail notice as herein required

Page 8 of 11
was not received by the owner, provided such notice was given
as prescribed by this section.

72 P.S. § 5860.602(h).

Appellant attempts to "hang his hat" on that last paragraph of Section

5860.602(h), "No sale shall be defeated and no title to property sold shall be

invalidated because of proof that mail notice as herein required was not received

by the owner ...." However, Appellant fails to recall the last portion of that sentence,

which unambiguously states that that sale is not defeated, "provided such notice

was given as prescnbed by this section." Section 5860.602(h) (italics added). This

Court notes that Notice via publication and posting was conceded; however, 72

P.S. Section 5860.602(e) remains applicable. Section 5860.602(e) states

(e) In addition to such publications, similar notice of the sale shall
also be given by the bureau as follows:

(1) At least thirty (30) days before the date of the sale, by
United States certified mail, restricted delivery, return
receipt requested, postage prepaid, to each owner as
defined by this act.

(2) If return receipt is not received from each owner
pursuant to the provisions of clause (1), then, at least
ten (10) days before the date of the sale, similar notice
of the sale shall be given to each owner who failed to
acknowledge the first notice by United States first class
mail, proof of mailing, at his last known post office
address by virtue of the knowledge and information
possessed by the bureau, by the tax collector for the
taxing district making the return and by the county office
responsible for assessments and revisions of taxes. It
shall be the duty of the bureau to determine the last post
office address known to said collector and county
assessment office.
Page 9 of 11
(3) Each property scheduled for sale shall be posted at least
ten (10) days prior to the sale.

72 P.S. § 5860.602(e).

This Court also notes that while the Delaware County Tax Claim Bureau attempted

to serve Notice of Sale by certified mail, the return receipt was not signed by Appellee

and the mail was returned with the handwritten notation "VAC". See Plaintiff's Exhibit, P-

1. The Appellate Courts have unswervingly held that if there is a signature on the return

receipt, that is the name of someone other than that of the owner of the corporation or

any other individual authorized to sign for the owner, that is insufficient to satisfy the tax

bureau's certified mail notice obligation. FS Partners v. York Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau,

132 A.3d 577, 582 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2016) citing Perma Coal-Sales, Inc., 162 Pa.Cmwlth.

7, 638 A.2d 329, 331 (1994) (signatures of persons who lacked authority to act for

corporation insufficient); Gill v. Tax Claim Bureau of Monroe County, 151

Pa.Cmwlth. 166, 616 A.2d 198, 199 (1992) (wife's signature of her own name insufficient

to constitute return receipt for husband's notice); Ali v. Montgomery County Tax

Claim Bureau, 124 Pa.Cmwlth. 557, 557 A.2d 35, 37 (1989) (signature of name other

than owner insufficient absent evidence that signer had authority to accept mail for

owner); Mangine Appeal, 87 Pa.Cmwlth. 47, 487 A.2d 45, 46-47 (1985) (wife's

signature of her own name insufficient to constitute return receipt for husband's notice);

see also Estate of Smith v. Pike County Tax Claim Bureau, (Pa.Cmwlth., No. 841

C.D.2011, filed Dec. 19, 2011), slip op. at 8-9, 2011 WL 10844286 at *4 (return receipt

stamp of post office not shown to have authorization to accept mail for owner

insufficient).

Page 10 of 11
Therefore, this Court determined that as where there is no signature, where the

mail was returned as the Property was vacant, the mailings were not provided in

accordance with Pennsylvania Real Estate Tax Laws. The Commonwealth Court has

consistently held that "[t]he purpose of a tax sale is not to strip an owner of his property

but rather to insure the tax on the property is collected." In re 2005 Sale of Real

Estate by Clinton Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau Delinquent Taxes, 915 A.2d 719, 724

(Pa.Cmwlth. 2007), as amended (Apr. 4, 2007) citing Murphy v. Monroe County Tax

Claim Bureau, 784 A.2d 878, 883 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001).

In the case sub Judice, the Court has a property owner who testified that he has

the means to satisfy the monies due and owing on the Property and that money was

available prior to the sale. It belies common sense that a property owner, who had the

means and motive and opportunity to pay prior to the sale of their property, would

purposely fail to appear or pay their monies due and owing. The Court Order served

justice and equity and complied with the rule of law.

CONCLUSION:

For all the foregoing reasons, this Court did not err in issui

00:17!i:ttw� l lOf 17l0l
'oo 3lflftittn3o sro 0311.::1

Page 11 of 11