State statutory interest rate is appropriate cramdown interest rate for tax liens under § 1325(a)(5). “Since municipalities are not for-profit lending institutions and do not regularly extend loans that can be used to determine the appropriate rate of interest, the case at bar is not on all-fours with [GMAC v. Jones (In re Jones), 999 F.2d 63 (3d Cir. 1993)]. . . . [T]he closest analog to the market loan in Jones is the statutory interest rate here. While the analogy is not perfect, it is sufficient: an entity forced to delay payment that it is entitled to receive is, in effect, extending a loan. And the rate that the municipality charges for those that coerce loans by not paying their property tax bills is twelve percent.”

To Read the full decision

The United States Bankruptcy Court in the matter of In re RGW Properties of Beaver County, Inc. , __ B.R. __ (2017), 2017 WL 658233 (Bankr.W.D.Pa. 2017), determined that RGW (investor) had obtained ownership of property through a presumptively valid tax sale. As such, the property ownership was confirmed by State Court and not attacked by the mortgage company in a timely manner under Pennsylvania law. The execution and recording of a deed raised a presumption of validity which placed the burden of proof on any party seeking to challenge the transfer. The Court determined that the investor acted in good faith under Section 1129(b) of the Code by agreeing to pay the FMV of the property within the Plan with appropriate interest pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465, 124 S.Ct. 1951, 158
L.Ed.2d 787 (2004). Ultimately, the Court confirmed the investor’s Plan which provided for the reamortization of the mortgage at $24,000 at 5% over 10 years.

To read the full decision please

The Internal Revenue Service may not place a “freeze” or “automatic hold” on Debtor’s funds pending court-approved relief from stay.

To read the full decision please

A Debtor may potentially exempt the IRA Annuities under § 522(d)(10)(E) because (a) an IRA is similar to “a stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing, or annuity . . . plan or contract,” and (b) at the time of the debtors\’ petition filing, had a sufficiently present right to receive payment from the IRA Annuities.

This case’s analysis was incorporated into the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Rousey v Jacoway, 544 U.S.  (2005) which the Court held that Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) qualify for certain exemptions under Title 11 of the United States Code.

To read the full decision please

Battisti’s home should not have been sold at a tax sale for $113,000 to satisfy a $235 delinquency
because the tax claim bureau did not issue an invoice for the money she owed, and did
not offer an installment plan option for repaying the delinquency. The court pointed out
that the bureau was required to offer a plan if the taxpayer paid at least 25 percent of the
total debt, and Battisti had paid 90 percent. [Battisti II] .

Commonwealth Court reminded Tax Claim Bureaus that “The purpose of the Real Estate
Tax Sale Law is to ensure the collection of taxes, not to deprive citizens of their property
or to create investment opportunities for those who attend tax sales”.

• To Satisfy Due Process, the Tax Claim Bureau must notify the Taxpayer of her rights under
Section 603 after it has received in excess of 25% of the outstanding amount
• Because the 603 installment plan was not offered to Ms. Battisti, reversed and sale set aside

HOLDINGS: [1]-ln a case involving a tax sale of a taxpayer’s home to in order to satisfy a 2009 tax
delinquency of$ 234.72, the order refusing to set aside the tax sale was reversed because the county
tax claim bureau failed to offer the taxpayer an installment plan option as required by the Real Estate
Tax Sale Law, 72 Pa. Stat. Ann.§ 5860.603.

Outcome:  Order reversed.

To read the full decision please

Our Firm represented Ms. Battisti through two (2) successful appeals and a trial.

Ultimately, the tax sale laws were enforced by Commonwealth Court as it held that: (a)
Once an appeal is filed from the tax sale of property, the homeowner is entitled to a trial
to prove that the Tax Claim Bureau did not follow strict conformance with the law and
that a purchaser of property at tax sale could not take advantage of the Rules of Civil
Procedure to argue that the sale should be upheld [Battisti I].

HOLDINGS: (1]-A trial court erred by denying a taxpayer’s petition to set aside the sale of her home at an
upset tax sale involving a total delinquency of $28.25 because after she filed objections, she was
entitled to an evidentiary hearing under the Real Estate Tax Sale Law, 72 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 5860.607(d), to
determine if the county tax claim bureau had met its burden of proving strict conformance with the
notice provisions of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law; [2]-The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure did not

apply to a § 5860.607 proceeding; [3]-Objections and a petition to set aside a tax sale filed by a taxpayer
were not pleadings as defined in Pa.R.C.P. No. 1017.

Outcome:  Order vacated; case remanded to trial court for an evidentiary hearing.

To read the full decision please