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.

Pollice v. National Tax Funding L.P.

August 17, 2006

TITO POLLICE AND VIOLET POLLICE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
NATIONAL TAX FUNDING L.P., CAPITAL ASSET RESEARCH CORP, LTD., CAULIS NEGRIS, L.L.C., MBIA, INC., MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION, AND MBIA MUNISERVICES COMPANY, DEFENDANTS.
GLADYS HOUCK, MARIE DEMITRAS, BRAGETTE PARKER AND MARY WALSH, ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CAPITAL ASSET RESEARCH CORP., LTD., NATIONAL TAX FUNDING, L.P. AND CAPITAL ASSET HOLDINGS GP, INC., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sensenich, Magistrate Judge

Judge David S. Cercone

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE OF CLAIMANT KATHLEEN GIVENS

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants in the case, National Tax Funding, L.P. (hereinafter "NTF"), et al. and Capital Asset Research Corp., Ltd. (hereinafter "CARC"), et al., purchased from the City of Pittsburgh the outstanding debts of property owners who had failed to pay property taxes and/or water and sewerage charges. Many of the liens were reassigned to another Defendant in this action, Caulis Negris LLC (hereinafter "Caulis"), which is an affiliate of NTF. Judge Ziegler determined that the 18% interest assessed on the debts (apparently both by the City and then by Defendants) was excessive and should not have exceeded 10%. His decision resulted in a class of plaintiffs who were entitled to recalculation of the amount of their debt as well as refunds if the amount they already paid exceeded the recalculated debt. The recalculations, which were based on the original records obtained from the City of Pittsburgh, were made by an independent auditor for Plaintiffs. The parties entered into a settlement agreement which provided a method for the property owners to challenge the recalculations of their debts. In order for the owner to receive a review of his account, he was required to submit a dispute resolution form, which was provided with the notice of the settlement. Under the Settlement Agreement, a property owner was not entitled to a refund if he had liens on other properties. Rather, any refund to which he was entitled was applied to offset the outstanding debt on the other properties.

The parties reported that all claims had been settled except those of Kathleen D. Givens. Ms. Givens owns the following eight properties that are subject to the Settlement Agreement: 7246 Idlewild Street, 1315 Oberlin Street, a lot on Oberlin Street adjacent to 1315 Oberlin Street, 7707 Baxter Street, 7713 Baxter Street, 7720 Calway Street, 1320 Oakdene Street, and a lot on Oakdene Street. She filed a dispute resolution form challenging the recalculations of her debt for the property at 7246 Idlewild Street, as required by the Settlement Agreement. She did not file a dispute resolution form for her residence, 1315 Oberlin Street,*fn1 although she admits she was notified about the claims against the property. Nor did she file dispute resolution forms for the other six properties that she owns; she alleges that she was never notified about claims against those properties.

I concluded that pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement an evidentiary hearing would be necessary. The hearing was convened on April 13, 2005 and was continued and reconvened on July 26, 2006. During the interval between the two hearing dates Ms. Givens obtained counsel, however, her counsel did not appear at the evidentiary hearing that took place on July 26, 2006.

At the hearing, Ms. Givens testified on her own behalf. Testifying for Defendants were Bruce Nelson, a representative of the firm that independently recalculated the amount of the debts, and Connie Ryan, a CARC employee. Bernard Rubb, Class Counsel, also testified in an effort to clarify certain matters regarding Ms. Givens' entitlement to a refund.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. For purposes of this litigation, the term "Class Members," as defined by the Settlement Agreement, means:

(i) all present or former owners of real estate in the City of Pittsburgh or the Borough of Mt. Oliver, situated in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, who own or owned real property that has been or is, as of the date of this Agreement, subject to claims and/or encumbered by liens for delinquent City and/or School District property taxes, ALCOSAN, City, or PWSA sewer charges, or City or PWSA water charges, the claims and/or liens for which, as of the date of this Agreement, have been or were purported to have been assigned to NTF or Caulis;

(ii) all parties claiming an equitable or other interest in any of the real property identified in clause (i), or in any claim against any Defendant relating in any manner to any Assigned Tax or Utility Claim, including but not limited to subrogees, other non-owners who paid any Assigned Tax or Utility Claim, heirs, legal representatives, successors, or other assignees, whether by contract, operation of law, or otherwise, whether voluntary or involuntary, with respect to any such real property or Assigned Tax or Utility Claim or any such claim against any Defendant; . . . . (Ex. 1 Part 1, Settlement Agreement Art. ¶ 1.1 in Defs.' Proposed Findings of Fact (Doc. No. 304).)*fn2

2. The claimant, Kathleen D. Givens, owns eight properties that are subject to claims and/or encumbered by liens for delinquent property taxes and water and sewerage charges and is therefore, a member of the class of Plaintiffs and subject to the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. (See Exs. 6, 7, 9 and 11.)

3. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, "Disputes of individual Class Members regarding calculation of any Tentative Aggregate Refund Amount, Refund Amount or Recalculated Outstanding Amount, and disputes regarding status as an Eligible Class Member or as an Owner-Occupant, shall be heard by a Magistrate Judge designated by Judge Ziegler or other judge to whom the Pollice and Houck actions have been assigned." (Ex. 1 Part 1, Settlement Agreement Art. 8 ¶ 8.2.)

4. By Order of Judge Cercone dated May 27, 2004, I have been designated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) to exercise jurisdiction to hear and try dispute resolution matters involving Class Members pursuant to section 8.2 of the Settlement Agreement and to direct the entry of judgments therein. (See Order attached to Doc. No. 275.)

5. The Recalculated Outstanding Amounts calculated as provided in the Settlement Agreement are valid and binding on Eligible Class Members, unless they are successfully challenged pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedures. (Ex. 1 Part 1, Settlement Agreement Art. 5 ¶ 5.2.)

6. According to the procedure developed for resolution of disputed claims, the "assigned principal amount" and "assigned interest and penalty" are presumed to be valid unless the claimant overcomes the presumption of validity by proferring clear documentary evidence to the contrary. (Id.)

7. Kathleen D. Givens has been identified as the owner of eight properties that are subject to Assigned Tax or Utility Claims. (See id., Art. 3 ¶ 3.1.)

8. Those eight properties are: 7246 Idlewild Street 1315 Oberlin Street a lot on Oberlin Street adjacent to 1315 Oberlin Street 7707 Baxter Street 7713 Baxter Street 7720 Calway Street 1320 Oakdene Street a lot on Oakdene Street

9. If a taxpayer had paid some, but not all, liens in full, the refund generated by those payments would be applied against the Recalculated Outstanding Amount of the remaining liens on the property or on the unpaid liens on other of the taxpayer's properties. (Ex. 1 Part 1, Settlement Agreement Art. 3 ¶¶ 3.1 & 3.2.)

10. Ms. Givens disputes the amount of the balance claimed to be owing after recalculation of the balance on her ...


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.