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.

JANET M. BASEHORE AND EARL F. BASEHORE v. DAUPHIN COUNTY TAX CLAIM BUREAU AND ALAN GOLDSTEIN (08/29/84)

decided: August 29, 1984.

JANET M. BASEHORE AND EARL F. BASEHORE, APPELLANTS
v.
DAUPHIN COUNTY TAX CLAIM BUREAU AND ALAN GOLDSTEIN, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County in the case of Janet M. Basehore and Earl F. Basehore, her husband v. Dauphin County Tax Claim Bureau and Alan Goldstein, No. 3091 S. 1982.

COUNSEL

William J. Fulton, with him, Robert D. Kodak, Graf, Knupp & Andrews, P.C., for appellants.

Frederick R. Martsolf, Connelly, Martsolf & Reid, for appellee, Dauphin County Tax Claim Bureau.

Norman M. Yoffe, Norman M. Yoffe, P.C., for appellee, Alan Goldstein.

Judges Williams, Jr., Doyle and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.

Author: Doyle

[ 84 Pa. Commw. Page 641]

Before us is an appeal of a decision and order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County which affirmed a tax sale of the property of Janet M. Basehore.

Appellant Basehore*fn1 is the record owner of certain land situated in East Hanover Township, Dauphin

[ 84 Pa. Commw. Page 642]

County, Pennsylvania. The premises in question were sold on September 13, 1982 at public sale to Louis Goldstein and Alan Goldstein for unpaid 1980 and 1981 taxes.

Before this Court, Appellant urges that the sale must be voided for failure to comply with the provisions of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law (Tax Sale Law), Act of July 7, 1947, P.L. 1368, as amended, 72 P.S. §§ 5860.101 -- 5860.803. Specifically, Appellant complains that (1) published notice of the impending sale erroneously listed the sale date as September 14, 1982 instead of September 13; (2) the published notices inadequately described the parcels to be sold; (3) the property subject to sale was never posted; and (4) post-sale notice to Appellant was untimely.

Appellant concedes that she was properly served with personal notice of the impending sale under Section 602 of the Tax Sale Law, 72 P.S. § 5860.602. As to the error in the published notice, there is also no factual dispute.*fn2 At the top, just under the ...


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.