Battisti v Tax Bureau of Beaver County Court Finds Tax Sale of Home
Battisti v. Tax Bureau of Beaver County, Court Finds Tax Sale of Home ... Legal Advocacy
Although she paid all the taxes included in the Beaver County tax notices for the next two years, Battisti still lost her home to a tax sale in 2011. It all stemmed from a $6.30 late fee added to her account when she paid her 2008 taxes six days late in 2009. In 2010, Beaver County listed her home for a tax sale based on the outstanding $6.30 plus additional interest. Costs associated with the intended sale caused the balance to balloon to $234.72. When Battisti paid the full amount of taxes noted in her 2009 tax bill, Beaver County removed her home from the sale because it considered the outstanding balance of $234.72 to be too small to justify a sale. But the tax office did not send her a bill for the balance. When Battisti tried to pay her 2010 taxes in 2011, she was informed that her home had already been sold. It was the first time she was informed that there was an outstanding balance of $234.72 on her account, all stemming from the $6.30 late fee. Pennsylvania law requires tax authorities to inform taxpayers how much they owe, and affirmatively to inform taxpayers who have paid at least 25 percent of their taxes that they can enter into a payment arrangement for the remaining balance. Inexplicably, Beaver County only tells taxpayers about this option — and only tells them about outstanding balances on their accounts — if they pay their taxes in person. Unfortunately for Battisti, she paid her taxes by mail. Battisti continued to live in her home but was forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to finally overturn the tax sale. Her initial challenge was dismissed without a trial; but on appeal the court reversed, finding she had a right to a trial. After a trial, the trial court found that Beaver County met its legal obligation to notify her about the sale. She again appealed. On her second appeal, AARP Foundation Litigation attorneys filed AARP’s friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of AARP, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, and the National Consumer Law Center urging the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court to set aside the tax sale. In the words of AARP’s brief, this dispute highlights “a process that systematically, utterly, and catastrophically fails to meet constitutionally required due process standards.”
The Commonwealth Court overturned the sale of her home to collect the $234.72 in late fees, interest, and costs, explaining “[t]his Court has held that the tax claim bureau must advise the taxpayer of the [statutory] option [to enter into a payment plan] because its failure to do so ‘would deprive the owner of his or her property without due process of law.’” The court found that Beaver County failed to meet the minimum effort required by law. Even though the court did not have to address the constitutional issue, it clearly recognized that “[a] tax claim bureau must satisfy due process, as well as the statute.” The U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions both protect against the government taking a person’s property without due process of law. This right includes getting notice sufficient to allow a person to avoid the taking. The court stated that “[a] reasonable tax claim bureau would have responded to Taxpayer’s payment on the 2008 taxes with an invoice for $6.30, and it would have invoiced Taxpayer in 2010 for the 2009 shortage of $234.72.” But, the court noted, “[i]t is undisputed that [Beaver County] never took the simple step of invoicing the taxpayer for the $6.30 or the $234.72, amounts even the Chief Assessor believed to be de minimis.” The court also detailed how the notices Beaver County did send were confusing and contradictory, and “jump around in time”.
Court Finds Tax Sale of Home Stemming From $6 30 Late Fee Violates Due Process
Read AARP's (PDF) AARP asked a Pennsylvania court to reverse the tax sale of a home that stemmed from a $6.30 late fee assessed when a homeowner paid her taxes 6 days late and the taxing authority sent confusing and contradictory notices about what she owed, never informed her of late fees and interest charged to her account, and did not offer her the opportunity to enter into a payment plan to save her home, as required by law. The appeals court agreed and overturned the tax sale.Background
After 50 year old Eileen Battisti’s husband died, she took over handling the family finances for the first time. She used the life insurance proceeds to pay off the mortgage on her home. That meant she had to pay her property taxes directly to Beaver County Tax Claims Bureau, instead of having them paid through an escrow account held by the mortgage company. It was not a smooth transition for her, and she suffered numerous other stressful family events over the next two years.Although she paid all the taxes included in the Beaver County tax notices for the next two years, Battisti still lost her home to a tax sale in 2011. It all stemmed from a $6.30 late fee added to her account when she paid her 2008 taxes six days late in 2009. In 2010, Beaver County listed her home for a tax sale based on the outstanding $6.30 plus additional interest. Costs associated with the intended sale caused the balance to balloon to $234.72. When Battisti paid the full amount of taxes noted in her 2009 tax bill, Beaver County removed her home from the sale because it considered the outstanding balance of $234.72 to be too small to justify a sale. But the tax office did not send her a bill for the balance. When Battisti tried to pay her 2010 taxes in 2011, she was informed that her home had already been sold. It was the first time she was informed that there was an outstanding balance of $234.72 on her account, all stemming from the $6.30 late fee. Pennsylvania law requires tax authorities to inform taxpayers how much they owe, and affirmatively to inform taxpayers who have paid at least 25 percent of their taxes that they can enter into a payment arrangement for the remaining balance. Inexplicably, Beaver County only tells taxpayers about this option — and only tells them about outstanding balances on their accounts — if they pay their taxes in person. Unfortunately for Battisti, she paid her taxes by mail. Battisti continued to live in her home but was forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to finally overturn the tax sale. Her initial challenge was dismissed without a trial; but on appeal the court reversed, finding she had a right to a trial. After a trial, the trial court found that Beaver County met its legal obligation to notify her about the sale. She again appealed. On her second appeal, AARP Foundation Litigation attorneys filed AARP’s friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of AARP, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, and the National Consumer Law Center urging the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court to set aside the tax sale. In the words of AARP’s brief, this dispute highlights “a process that systematically, utterly, and catastrophically fails to meet constitutionally required due process standards.”
The Commonwealth Court overturned the sale of her home to collect the $234.72 in late fees, interest, and costs, explaining “[t]his Court has held that the tax claim bureau must advise the taxpayer of the [statutory] option [to enter into a payment plan] because its failure to do so ‘would deprive the owner of his or her property without due process of law.’” The court found that Beaver County failed to meet the minimum effort required by law. Even though the court did not have to address the constitutional issue, it clearly recognized that “[a] tax claim bureau must satisfy due process, as well as the statute.” The U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions both protect against the government taking a person’s property without due process of law. This right includes getting notice sufficient to allow a person to avoid the taking. The court stated that “[a] reasonable tax claim bureau would have responded to Taxpayer’s payment on the 2008 taxes with an invoice for $6.30, and it would have invoiced Taxpayer in 2010 for the 2009 shortage of $234.72.” But, the court noted, “[i]t is undisputed that [Beaver County] never took the simple step of invoicing the taxpayer for the $6.30 or the $234.72, amounts even the Chief Assessor believed to be de minimis.” The court also detailed how the notices Beaver County did send were confusing and contradictory, and “jump around in time”.