The Challenge
After receiving notice of tax delinquency, the clients entered into an agreement with the city government on the day of the originally scheduled sheriff’s sale. Under that agreement, the clients made an initial payment toward the tax arrearage in exchange for postponement of the sheriff’s sale.
Believing the matter was being resolved, the clients were shocked to later discover that the property had been sold at sheriff’s sale the following month. The evening before the sale, a fax was sent after business hours to the clients’ attorney at the time, advising that the property would proceed to sheriff’s sale the next morning. By the time the attorney returned to the office the following day, the property had already been sold for a significant sum.
The clients then retained Nochumson P.C. to attempt to set aside the sheriff’s sale and recover title to the property.
The Solution
Nochumson P.C. immediately filed a petition to set aside the sheriff’s sale in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. During the hearing, the firm presented testimony from the clients and their former attorney in support of the petition.
The trial court granted the petition and ordered that title to the property revert back to the clients. In support of its ruling, the trial court relied upon a prior appellate court opinion involving another sheriff’s sale matter previously handled by Nochumson P.C.
The third-party purchasers later appealed the ruling to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The appeal was heard en banc before the full Commonwealth Court, which ultimately affirmed the trial court’s ruling and ordered that title to the property be transferred back to the clients.
En banc review before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is generally reserved for matters involving significant legal issues or cases considered especially important or complex.
The Results
Following the appellate court’s decision, title to the property was restored to the clients. Years later, the clients were able to sell the property on their own terms for a significant profit.
The matter resulted in both trial court and appellate court victories preserving the clients’ ownership rights in the family-operated property.
