In Re: Petition to Set Aside Upset Tax Sale Appeal of: Craig Hansford
Argued: September 9, 2019
BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE MICHAEL H.
WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Senior Judge
OPINION
ANNE
E. COVEY, JUDGE
Craig
Hansford (Hansford) appeals from the Lehigh County Common
Pleas Court's (trial court) September 17, 2018 order
denying Hansford's Amended Petition to Set Aside Upset
Tax Sale (Petition).[1] Essentially, the issue before this Court
is whether Hansford was an owner occupant of 41 East Wyoming
Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103 (Property) at the time
of the upset tax sale.[2]
The
facts are undisputed.[3] Hansford has owned the Property
"[s]ince 2007, 2008."[4] Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 43a.
Hansford was arrested on or about May 22, 2017 and has been
incarcerated thereafter. See R.R. at 43a-44a. On
September 20, 2017, a tax sale ensued as a result of
delinquent taxes. Hyoungjoon Park (Park) purchased the
Property at the tax sale for $60, 000.00. See
Original Record, Hansford Memorandum in Support of Petition,
Ex. A (Lehigh County Property Tax Notes). On December 22,
2017, Hansford filed the Petition alleging that he is an
owner occupant of the Property, thus the Lehigh County Tax
Claim Bureau (Bureau) was required to personally serve him
notice of the sale.[5] On March 16, 2018, Park filed a Petition
to Intervene. By March 20, 2018 order, the trial court
granted Park's Petition to Intervene. The trial court
held a hearing on July 9, 2018, and heard argument on July
17, 2018. On September 17, 2018, the trial court denied the
Petition. On September 18, 2018, the trial court filed its
opinion. On October 9, 2018, the trial court filed an amended
opinion and an amended order incorporating the amended
opinion. Hansford appealed to this Court on October 24,
2018.[6]
Hansford
first argues that the Bureau failed to present evidence
establishing its compliance with Sections 601(a)(3) and 602
of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law (RETSL).[7] The Bureau
rejoins that Section 602 of the RETSL is not an issue before
this Court because it was not raised before the trial court;
and Section 601(a)(3) of the RETSL does not apply because
Hansford was not an owner occupant at the time of the
sale.[8]
Initially,
with respect to the issues before this Court, the following
transpired before the trial court:
THE COURT: . . . .
We have two issues as defined by [Hansford's a]ttorney
[Glennis] Clark[, ] and Attorney[] [Diane] Dinstel
[representing Northeast Revenue Service, LLC, the agent for
the Bureau] and [Attorney Kathryn] Williams [representing
Park] agree are [sic] fair issues to deal with in a case like
this.
1. Whether [] Hansford is an owner occupant as defined under
Section 102 of the [RETSL[9] as to the [P]roperty at issue; correct?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR. CLARK: Yes.
MS. DINSTEL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: 2. Whether the [RETSL] requires personal service
on an owner who is not an owner occupant as defined by said
statute; correct?
MS. DINSTEL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That makes sense. Yes?
MR. CLARK: Yes.
THE COURT: Yes?
MS. DINSTEL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
THE COURT: So the first is a factual question and the second
is a ...