Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in the case of Muhammad Ali v. Montgomery County Tax Claim Bureau and 850 Modena Street, Inc., No. 85-13923.
Alfred O. Breinig, Jr., for appellant.
Oscar N. Gaskins, Gaskins, Simms and White, P.C., for appellee.
Judges Doyle, Palladino and Smith, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.
[ 124 Pa. Commw. Page 558]
Appellant, 850 Modena Street, Inc., appeals from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court) which set aside a tax sale at which Appellant purchased premises located at 30 West Levering Mill Road in Lower Merion.
The premises in question were sold at a tax sale on September 9, 1985. On November 6, 1985, Muhammad Ali (Ali), the owner of the property, filed exceptions to the sale averring that the Tax Claim Bureau of Montgomery
[ 124 Pa. Commw. Page 559]
County (Bureau) had failed to comply with the notice provisions in section 602 of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law (Law), Act of July 7, 1947, P.L. 1368, as amended, 72 P.S. § 5860.602. The trial court concluded that the posting and mailing requirements of section 602 of the Law had not been complied with; accordingly, the trial court sustained Ali's exceptions and set aside the sale. Appellant has appealed to this court.
Appellant raises four*fn1 issues for review. Our disposition of the case requires that we address only three:*fn2 (1) whether Ali waived issues by not raising them in his exceptions; (2) whether the trial court improperly allocated the burden of proof; and (3) whether changes in United States Postal Service provisions make it impossible for the Bureau to comply with the Law, as written, thereby rendering the Bureau's notice sufficient by present United States Postal Service provisions. Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, rendered a decision with lack of supporting evidence or clearly erred as a matter of law. Chester County Tax Claim Bureau v. Griffith, 113 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 105, 536 A.2d 503 (1988). For the reasons which follow, we affirm.
Appellant first argues that Ali failed to raise various issues in his exceptions and has therefore waived any argument as to those issues. Our review of the exceptions establishes that Ali properly raised all notice issues. Ali averred that the premises had not been properly posted, that the mail notice was inadequate and insufficient, and
[ 124 Pa. Commw. Page 560]
that, therefore, the Bureau had not complied with § 602 of the Law. These alleged notice deficiencies provided the basis for the ...