Opinion

Miron, T., Aplt. v. Delaware Cty. Tax Claim Bur

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Dec 17, 2025
Status
Published
On the bench
Wecht, David N.
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 37.7%

The opinion

[J-93-2025]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

THOMAS MIRON, : No. 88 MAP 2024

:

Appellant : Appeal from the Order of the

: Commonwealth Court at No. 290 CD

: 2023 dated April 10, 2024, Affirming

v. : the Order of the Delaware County

: Court of Common Pleas, Civil

: Division, at No. No. CV-2022-

DELAWARE COUNTY TAX CLAIM : 006747 dated February 7, 2023.

BUREAU, ARTHUR F. URBANY AND JAC :

PROPERTIES, : ARGUED: November 19, 2025

:

Appellees :

CONCURRING STATEMENT

JUSTICE WECHT

We granted review in order to answer the following question:

Whether, under Section 602 of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law, 72 P.S. §

5860.602, a mortgagee of real property is entitled to written notice via

personal service or mail of an impending upset tax sale of the property on

which the mortgagee holds a mortgage in light of the United States

Supreme Court’s decision in Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462

U.S. 791 (1983), and this Court’s decision in First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A.

v. Lancaster County Tax Claim Bureau, 470 A.2d 938 (Pa. 1983)?1

Having read the parties’ briefs and heard their arguments, I join the decision to

dismiss this appeal as improvidently granted.

MAC Business Services held a deed to a property in Delaware County. MAC

executed a mortgage in favor of Thomas Miron. After MAC failed to pay its property taxes,

Delaware County’s Tax Claim Bureau scheduled an upset tax sale. Arthur F. Urbany was

1 Per Curiam Order, 11/19/2024.

the successful bidder. He assigned his interest to JAC Properties. The deed was issued

to JAC. Soon after, the Tax Claim Bureau informed Miron of the sale. Miron attempted

to set aside the sale because he was not afforded prior notice. The trial court denied

relief. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the relevant statutes do not

require that notice be given to a mortgagee.2

In Mennonite Board of Missions, the United States Supreme Court recognized a

procedural due process right to notice for mortgagees in the context of tax sales that

would erase existing mortgages. There, the Court struck down an Indiana statute which

authorized a tax sale that extinguished a mortgage without prior notice to a mortgagee,

who thereby was denied the opportunity to redeem the property.3 Similarly, in First

Pennsylvania Bank, this Court, relying upon Mennonite Board of Missions, found a similar

right to notice for the mortgagee when the tax sale extinguished a mortgage that was

junior to the tax lien.4 By contrast, there appears to be no question that the mortgage in

this case survives the tax sale, so these authorities are not directly on point.

A due process argument could someday be ventured to the effect that prior notice

should be afforded to a lienholder even in a scenario where the lien will survive the tax

sale. In the normal course, a mortgagee would be entitled (and, indeed, expected) to

investigate a potential mortgagor and make an informed decision about whether the

mortgagee wishes to extend credit to, and do business with, a particular mortgagor. In

the tax sale situation, the mortgagee is forced to contract with the winning bidder of the

tax sale, inasmuch as the winner takes the property subject to the lien. Without advance

notice of the sale, the mortgagee is denied the opportunity to weigh risk, assess the buyer,

2 See 72 P.S. §§ 5860.102, 5860.602(e)(1).

3 462 U.S. at 798-800.

4 470 A.2d at 184-87 (Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court).

[J-93-2025, 88 MAP 2024] - 2

or take any measures calculated to preserve asset value and protect its interest in the

property (notwithstanding that its interest is not a fee interest). If provided notice, the

mortgagee might elect to secure its collateral by paying the back taxes, bidding at the tax

sale, or pursuing other statutory remedies.5

Miron failed to present any argument whatsoever along these lines. Consideration

of such issues must await another day.

5 See, e.g., 72 P.S. § 5860.603 (providing that “[a]ny owner or lien creditor” may

stay the sale by entering an agreement for a payment plan).

[J-93-2025, 88 MAP 2024] - 3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.