There's some good news for a Pennsylvania woman this week: she can keep her home. A decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has put an end to litigation involving the sale of her home due to an alleged underpayment.
The woman, Eileen Battisti, allegedly failed to pay $6.30 (downloads as a pdf) in interest on a late payment of property taxes in Beaver County. Battisti and her husband, Anthony, bought the home in 1999. Five years later, Battisti’s husband died, leaving her with three children, the home and the mortgage. She used the proceeds from her husband’s life insurance to pay off the mortgage but was unable to timely keep up with the other bills, including the taxes due on the property.
In 2008, Battisti missed the deadline - by six days - for paying her property taxes. She eventually paid the original tax bill ($833.88) plus penalty and late fees. She did not, however, tack on additional interest of $6.30 which had accrued but was not yet included on the tax bill for the late payment.
In 2010, Battisti was late again with her county tax payments. She again settled up, paying interest and penalty in full for 2010. The $6.30 from 2008 remained unpaid and Battisti claims that she was not made aware of the balance. By 2011, the amount due from the 2008 tax bill had ballooned to $255.84. County officials proceeded to put Battisti’s home up for sale.
Battisti’s home was eventually sold at sheriff’s sale for nearly $120,000. After taxes, interest and costs deducted from the sale, Battisti was entitled to just $108,039 from the proceeds. She was not entitled to her home. In a mercenary twist, the new buyer, S.P. Lewis, offered to sell the home back to her for $260,000 - more than twice the amount he paid. According to court documents (downloads as a pdf), "S.P. Lewis is an individual who purchases properties at tax sales and then sells them back to the taxpayer at a profit; this is Lewis’ full-time occupation."
Battisti balked at the offer and sued the county and Lewis, alleging, among other things that she had no notice of the debt or the sale. The case eventually landed in front of Beaver County Common Pleas Judge Gus Kwidis who sided with the county.
Battisti appealed the decision and a state Commonwealth Court overturned the ruling (downloads as a pdf) last December, finding the tax sale to be in error. The court's decision hinged not on the notice issue but another procedural matter: Beaver County's Tax Bureau did not offer Battisti a repayment plan. By law, Battisti should have been offered the opportunity to pay a portion (25%) of the outstanding tax before sale. Section 603 of the Pennsylvania Real Estate Tax Sale Law states:
Any owner or lien creditor of the owner may, at the option of the bureau, prior to the actual sale, . . . (2) enter into an agreement, in writing, with the bureau to stay the sale of the property upon the payment of twenty-five per centum (25%) of the amount due on all tax claims and tax judgments filed or entered against such property and the interest and costs on the taxes returned to date, as provided by this act, and agreeing therein to pay the balance of said claims and judgments and the interest and costs thereon in not more than three (3) instalments all within one (1) year of the date of said agreement, the agreement to specify the dates on or before which each instalment shall be paid, and the amount of each instalment. So long as said agreement is being fully complied with by the taxpayer, the sale of the property covered by the agreement shall be stayed.
That didn't happen here and, as a result, the court vacated the sale. The court also noted that while "a tax claim bureau must satisfy due process" that issue would not be addressed further in this case because the failure to offer the payment plan was enough to reverse the sale. It is clear, however, that the court did not agree that clear notice of the amount due was provided to Battisti.
With that ruling, you'd think that would be the end of it but remarkably, it didn't stop there. The county and the buyer continued to press all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which, on yesterday, denied the appeal. The final result? Battisti will now be able to keep her home.
