Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PETITION CITY PITTSBURGH. FRANK A. DABECCO (04/17/78)

decided: April 17, 1978.

IN RE: PETITION OF CITY OF PITTSBURGH. FRANK A. DABECCO, APPELLANT


Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of In Re: Petition of City of Pittsburgh, No. 1687 July Term, 1974.

COUNSEL

Thomas J. Cox, Jr., with him Daniel Krause, for appellant.

Rodney W. Fink, for appellee.

Judges Crumlish, Jr. and Blatt, sitting as a panel of two. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 35 Pa. Commw. Page 19]

Appellant, Frank A. Dabecco, appeals a decision of the Court of Common Pleas dismissing his petition to show cause why a tax sale to Objectors, Anthony Pivisotto and Robert Woods, should not be set aside.

The following factual presentation serves as the genesis of this controversy.

Pursuant to Section 1 of the Act of July 5, 1947 (Act), P.L. 1258, as amended, 53 P.S. § 26101,*fn1 certain

[ 35 Pa. Commw. Page 20]

    tax delinquent properties located in the City of Pittsburgh (City) were offered for sale to the public by the City. Appellant submitted a bid of $5,000.00 for these properties and, in accordance with Section 12(b) of the Act, 53 P.S. § 26112(b), the City petitioned for the validation of Appellant's tax title and approval of the sale.*fn2 Objectors entered an objection to the City's petition alleging that Appellant's bid price was inadequate. A hearing on the City's petition, therefore, was held pursuant to Section 14 of the Act, 53 P.S. § 26114,*fn3 at which Objectors submitted a bid of $5,500.00. Appellant, appearing as a bidder, refused

[ 35 Pa. Commw. Page 21]

    to increase his bid*fn4 claiming that, although he was a low bidder, he was a more qualified developer than Objectors and, therefore, the interest of the City would be better served by approving his bid. After taking evidence on the qualifications of each bidder, the court below concluded that sale of the properties to Objectors as high bidder would be in the best interest of the City. The City's petition for validation and approval, therefore, was denied and sale of the properties to Objectors for $5,500.00 was approved.

The City thereafter filed a petition for rule to show cause why the sale to Objectors should not be set aside alleging that the information received at the hearing on their petition for validation and approval regarding Objectors' ability to develop the subject properties was inaccurate and incomplete. The petition was granted and the matter retried. The City moved to make the rule to show cause absolute. Finding no basis for the City's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.