Judge Upholds Sale Of Woman’s Home Prompted By Unpaid $6.30 Tax Bill

A woman who’s been fighting for home since it was sold in 2011 at auction has suffered a setback after a judge ruled the sale can stand. She failed to pay a $6.30 interest fee on a late tax bill, but has been living in the home since its sale in an effort to keep it.

A Pennsylvania judge ruled that the woman had plenty of notice and time to pay up on that interest before her $280,000 house ws soled at a tax auction, reports the Associated Press. She’d been trying to reverse the sale.

“I paid everything, and didn’t know about the $6.30,” she said. “For the house to be sold just because of $6.30 is crazy.”

The judge explained in the decision that the county tax claim bureau did exactly what was required of it before the house finally ended up at auction.

“There is no doubt that (she) had actual receipt of the notification of the tax upset sale on July 7, 2011, and Aug. 16, 2011,” the judge wrote. “Moreover, on Aug. 12, 2011, a notice of sale was sent by first class mail and was not returned.”

The woman had said that her husband had handled the home’s property taxes until his death in 2004, leaving her to manage things on her own. At the time her house sold, she owed only about $235 in taxes.

She told the court that since her husband’s death, she “has struggled to assume responsibility for the financial matters previously handled by her husband,” in addition to “physical and emotional challenges that have caused her to be tardy in paying taxes.”

She’s planning on appealing to the Commonwealth Court, which had ordered an evidentiary hearing that led to this most recent ruling.

Judge OKs decision to sell widow’s home over $6.30 debt [Associated Press]

Read Comments3

Edit Your Comment

  1. oomingmak says:

    In cases like this is the person who bought the home also fighting with the original homeowner to take possession or are they offering to reverse the sale but the county is say “no way”?

    If the former, you’ve got to be a pretty heartless bastard to go through with something like this. I think that in cases like this the names of the purchaser should be made public — I notice they’re just referred to as “purchaser” in the news article.

    • MarthaGaill says:

      Why should the purchaser be called out? The home went up for auction and their bid won. It’s not like this person is trying to hurt this woman. That’s on the county.

      • CommonC3nts says:

        As soon as they find out about the situation and how the whole situation is wrong they should ethically back out of the deal and say to let her keep the house.
        Instead these losers just see $$ and could care less if they hurt someone.

        This is why there needs to be common sense laws that a house can only go to a tax sale auction once it accumulates at least 10% of its assessed value in back taxes to eliminate these deminimus tax issues. Once you reach a certain level of back taxes then no one will stick up for you, but just over $6 and the entire world is going to be outraged that a judge would do this.

        I have a feeling the judge is friends with the person that bought the house at the tax sale.