In Re Upset Tax Sale Held 11/10/97

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding statutory requirements were met where the receipt received by the bureau bore purported signature of husband to whom the notice was sent, even though wife had signed it for him
• return receipt bearing signature of husband-owner’s name was sufficient to satisfy certified mail notice requirement with respect to husband-owner, even though wife signed his name and did not inform him of tax sale
• “‘[W]here the [tax claim] bureau has complied with all the notice provisions of Section 602 [of the RETSL], the fact that notice was not actually received will not defeat the sale.’”
• “‘[W]here the [tax claim] bureau has complied with all the notice provisions of Section 602 [of the RETSL], the fact that notice was not actually received will not defeat the sale.’”
• where the county tax claim bureau complied with the notice provisions prescribed, the fact that notice was not actually received by a husband whose spouse signed her husband’s name on the return receipt did not defeat the sale.
• return receipt bearing signature of husband-owner’s name was sufficient to satisfy certified mail notice requirement with respect to husband-owner, even though it turned out that his wife signed his name and did not inform him of tax sale

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).