Plta v. East Stroudsburg Area School Dist.

• Decision Date: 22 November 2006
• Citation: 913 A.2d 961
• Parties: The PENNSYLVANIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION and Fidelity Home Abstract, Inc., Individually and as Representatives of All Other Individuals and Entities Similarly Situated v. EAST STROUDSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Dr. Rachel R. Heath, Superintendent of East Stroudsburg Area School District, Pleasant Valley School District, Dr. Frank A. Pullo, Superintendent Pleasant Valley School District, June O'Neill, Chestnuthill Township Tax Collector, Helen Mackes, Eldred Township Tax Collector, Carolyn Meinhart, Polk Township Tax Collector, Jean Altemose, Ross Township Tax Collector, Alberta Tallada, East Stroudsburg Borough Tax Collector, Dawn Arnst, Middle Smithfield Tax Collector, Sharon Gerberich, Smithfield Township Tax Collector, Kathy Mosher Kroll, Price Township Tax Collector Appeal of East Stroudsburg Area School District, Pleasant Valley School District, Dr. Rachel R. Heath and Dr. Frank A. Pullo.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 961

913 A.2d 961

The PENNSYLVANIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION and Fidelity Home Abstract, Inc., Individually and as Representatives of All Other Individuals and Entities Similarly Situated v. EAST STROUDSBURG AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Dr. Rachel R. Heath, Superintendent of East Stroudsburg Area School District, Pleasant Valley School District, Dr. Frank A. Pullo, Superintendent Pleasant Valley School District, June O'Neill, Chestnuthill Township Tax Collector, Helen Mackes, Eldred Township Tax Collector, Carolyn Meinhart, Polk Township Tax Collector, Jean Altemose, Ross Township Tax Collector, Alberta Tallada, East Stroudsburg Borough Tax Collector, Dawn Arnst, Middle Smithfield Tax Collector, Sharon Gerberich, Smithfield Township Tax Collector, Kathy Mosher Kroll, Price Township Tax Collector Appeal of East Stroudsburg Area School District, Pleasant Valley School District, Dr. Rachel R. Heath and Dr. Frank A. Pullo.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued September 13, 2006.

Decided November 22, 2006.

Reargument Denied January 12, 2007.

Helen L. Gemmill, Harrisburg, for appellants.

Jane Roach, Stroudsburg, for appellees.

BEFORE: COLINS, President Judge, McGINLEY, Judge, SMITH-RIBNER, Judge, FRIEDMAN, Judge, LEADBETTER, Judge, COHN JUBELIRER, Judge, and SIMPSON, Judge.

OPINION BY Judge McGINLEY.

The East Stroudsburg School District (East Stroudsburg) and Pleasant Valley School District (Pleasant Valley) (collectively, the School Districts)¹ appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County (trial court) that granted the Pennsylvania Land Title Association's (PLTA) and Fidelity Home Abstract, Inc.'s (Fidelity) motion for peremptory judgment and issued a writ of mandamus against the School Districts.

On November 21, 2005, PLTA and Fidelity alleged in its class action² Complaint:

1. ... [PLTA] ... is a duly organized Pennsylvania non-stock, non-profit corporation in good standing, whose stated mission is `the advancement of the science of evidencing and insuring title to real property and the education of its members through various seminars and other educational functions' ....

2. ... Fidelity ... is a duly organized Pennsylvania corporation in good standing engaged in the business of title examination, real estate settlement services and the sale of title insurance ....

3. ... East Stroudsburg ... is a school district of the Second Class and a taxing district, located in Monroe and Pike Counties ... with its administrative offices in East Stroudsburg....

....

5. ... Pleasant Valley ... is a school district of the Third Class and a taxing district located in Monroe County ... with its administrative offices in Brodheadsville, Monroe County....

....

16. ... East Stroudsburg ... and Pleasant Valley ... are Monroe County taxing districts within the meaning of the School Code, the Local Tax Collection Act, the General Assessment Act and the Real Estate Tax Sales Act.

Count I

17. The Monroe County Tax Claim Bureau, hereinafter "the Bureau" is a county office, established by the Real Estate Tax Sales Act, supervised by the Monroe County Commissioners and charged with various real estate tax collection obligations under the Real Estate Tax Sales Act.

....

19. The Tax Collectors and or their predecessors in office have not made any returns on any school taxes for the East Stroudsburg School District to the Bureau for the tax years 2002, 2003 and 2004. (emphasis added).

20. The Tax Collectors and or their predecessors in office have not made any returns on any school taxes for the Pleasant Valley School District to the Bureau for the tax years 2002, 2003 and 2004. (emphasis added).

21. The Tax Collectors and or their predecessors in office have instead, apparently at the direction of the School Districts, made returns to or relinquished their books, tax duplicates, data and or records solely to the School Districts. (emphasis added).

22. The School Districts have pursued the collection of and have collected delinquent taxes directly, in part through the filing of municipal liens in the Office of the Prothonotary of Monroe County. (emphasis added).

23. Plaintiffs [PLTA and Fidelity] believes [sic] and therefore avers [sic] that the Tax Collectors and the School Districts intend to continue the practice of depriving the Bureau of any returns, tax duplicates, records, data or books of school taxes, instead placing any returns and the books, tax duplicates and or records of the Tax Collectors with the School Districts.

24. The Bureau is unable to provide Plaintiff [PLTA and Fidelity], the Class and or public with Certifications or with any access to the returns, data, tax duplicates, books and records of school taxes for the real estate located within the geographic boundaries of the School Districts, for the tax years described above, as the Bureau has no control of or access to any returns of any school taxes from the Tax Collectors, or to the books, tax duplicates, data and records of the collection of such school taxes by the Tax Collectors. (footnote omitted).

25. Returns and public records for all other taxing districts in Monroe County are duly returned to and available to the public at the Bureau.

....

29. Counsel to Plaintiffs [PLTA and Fidelity] has requested that the Tax Collectors make returns to the Bureau and they have failed and refused to do so. (emphasis added).

30. Counsel to Plaintiffs [PLTA and Fidelity] has requested that the School Districts return any returns, books, tax duplicates, data and records to the Bureau and they have failed and refused to do so. (emphasis added).

31. Counsel to Plaintiffs [PLTA and Fidelity] has requested that the School Districts relinquish all direct payments of delinquent taxes to the Bureau and they have failed to do so. (emphasis added).

32. The failure and refusal of the Tax Collectors and the School Districts to make returns and to relinquish the returns, books, duplicates, data and records of the Tax Collectors and receipts of direct payments of delinquent taxes to the Bureau warrants Mandamus relief .... (emphasis added).

33. Plaintiffs [PLTA and Fidelity] have an immediate and complete legal right to the relief requested herein and have a beneficial interest in this matter distinct from the general public interest....

34. The ability of Plaintiffs [PLTA and Fidelity] and the Class reliably to search, to examine and to insure titles to real estate in the School Districts has been substantially impaired by the events, facts and circumstances set out above. (emphasis added).

35. Plaintiffs [PLTA and Fidelity] have no adequate remedy at law in that a suit for damages would not remedy the deprivation of access to public records of tax claims and payments. (emphasis added).

Complaint, Paragraphs 1-3, 5, 16-17, 19-25, and 29-35 at 2-8; R.R. at 8a-14a.

Also, on November 21, 2005, PLTA and Fidelity sought a peremptory judgment on its mandamus claims and alleged:

4. Plaintiffs [PLTA and Fidelity] are prepared to prove through stipulations and through the testimony of appropriate witnesses that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. (emphasis added).

5. Where there are no issues of material fact in dispute, a party requesting mandamus relief is entitled to peremptory judgment prior to the filing of a responsive pleading by the Defendants [the School Districts].

6. Plaintiffs [PLTA and Fidelity] request an evidentiary hearing on their Motion for Peremptory Judgment. (emphasis added).

7. The resolution of peremptory judgment prior to certification of the proposed class is warranted in that:

....

c. The issuance of Peremptory Judgment prior to class certification would result in a judgment that binds the individual Plaintiffs [PLTA and Fidelity] and the Defendants [the School Districts] and not the Class; given the nature of the mandamus relief requested in this action, neither the Class nor the Defendants [the School Districts] would suffer harm if the mandamus relief issued in the form of a peremptory judgment does not bind the class.

Motion For Peremptory Judgment On Mandamus Claims, November 21, 2005, Paragraphs 4-7(c) at 1; R.R. at 38a.

The trial court recounted the facts based upon the testimony³ elicited at the December 7, 2005, hearing:

The facts of this case are as follows: Briefly since 2003 the Tax Collectors, following the instructions of the School Districts, have not made returns of delinquent school taxes for tax years 2002, 2003 and 2004 to the Monroe County Tax Claim Bureau.... Instead, the School Districts have contracted with Portnoff Law Associates, Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Portnoff"), to act as their solicitor for purposes of collecting delinquent taxes using the provisions of the Municipal Claims and Tax Lien Act. As a result, the Bureau has no records of paid or delinquent school taxes for properties located within the two School Districts for the tax years 2002, 2003 and 2004. The School Districts are able to provide information regarding delinquent school tax records to the general public upon request; however, the information is not readily available for viewing by the general public, nor is the information updated after the delinquent taxes are forwarded to Portnoff for collection. Consequently, title searchers, title insurance companies, mortgage companies, banks, attorneys and the general public cannot obtain this information from the Bureau or the School Districts; instead, they must contact Portnoff. Anyone requesting information from Portnoff can receive a verbal report on the status of such taxes free of charge; however, if a written report is requested, the cost is $25.00 to $50.00 depending on whether it is an expedited request. When requesting a written report from Portnoff, it takes a minimum of five business days to receive the information for a regular request, and it takes two business days to receive the information on an expedited request. All...