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.

RETURN BUTLER COUNTY TAX CLAIM BUREAU TAX SALE HELD SEPTEMBER 8 (05/05/88)

decided: May 5, 1988.

IN RE: RETURN OF THE BUTLER COUNTY TAX CLAIM BUREAU OF TAX SALE HELD SEPTEMBER 8, 1986. DORIS MARSHALEK, APPELLANT


Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, in the case of In Re: Return of the Butler County Tax Claim Bureau of the Tax Sale Held September 8, 1986 -- Appeal of Doris Marshalek, Misc. Dkt. No. 86-111, Book 44, Page 210.

COUNSEL

Andrew M. Miller, for appellant.

Frank P. Krizner, County Solicitor, for appellee, Tax Claim Bureau.

James Coulter, for appellee, Robert Raida.

Judges MacPhail, Colins and McGinley, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge McGinley.

Author: Mcginley

[ 116 Pa. Commw. Page 2]

Doris Marshalek (Appellant) appeals an order by Judge Rauschenberger of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, which confirmed and validated the tax sale to purchaser Robert Raida of Appellant's undivided one-fifth (1/5) interest in certain real estate in Butler County.

On September 9, 1986, the Butler County Tax Claim Bureau (Bureau) sold the one-fifth interest Appellant owned as a tenant in common with seven others in 125.70 acres of land in Washington Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania. The sale resulted from the nonpayment of her 1984 real estate taxes. Appellant filed objections to the tax sale on November 6, 1986, and after a hearing on March 18, 1987, the trial court held that the tax sale was confirmed and validated in the purchaser. This appeal followed.*fn1

Appellant argues the tax sale should be held invalid for three reasons: first, the description in the tax sale notices was confusing and incorrect; second, Appellant

[ 116 Pa. Commw. Page 3]

    was told on April 2, 1986, by an employee of the Bureau that she owed no taxes, and therefore disregarded the subsequent tax sale notices she received; and third, none of the other seven owners of the 125.70 acres were notifed of the tax sale.

Appellant's first and second arguments are without merit.*fn2 Appellant's final argument is that the trial court erroneously determined that the only interest being sold was the separately assessed interest of Appellant and since Appellant was notified there was no reason why the other owners should be notified as their interests were not being sold.

The Bureau relies on Act of May 24, 1917 (1917 Act), P.L. 270, §§ 1, 2, 72 P.S. §§ 5968, 5969, which together provide that the interest of any tenant in common or coparcener is not to be sold for the co-owner's failure to pay taxes and that any such co-owner may pay his proportionate share of the tax without affecting the interest of the other ...


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.