Case Law Summaries

City of Camden v. Block No. 501

• Opinion Date: May 3, 2001
• Real Property Law
• E-Mail

FORECLOSURE; NOTICE—A party sent by a property owner to negotiate with a foreclosing municipality can be considered as the agent of the property owner to whom foreclosure notices can be sent.

An estate defaulted on a mortgage loan. A mortgage foreclosure was eventually instituted and a lis pendens filed against the property. The municipality was owed a significant amount in back taxes, some for when the decedent was alive. A Pennsylvania lawyer, father of one of the trustees of the estate, went to the municipality in the capacity of advisor for the estate. He left a business card with two addresses as a way to reach him; one address was described as “By Appointment Only” and the other as a mailing address, listing only a post office box, with no further street address provided. Both were in Philadelphia. A Notice of In Rem Foreclosure was sent to the “By Appointment Only” address, certified mail, return receipt requested. It was accepted and forwarded to the advisor by someone who had no affiliation to the estate. The advisor claimed he never received it. The estate never filed an answer and the tax foreclosure proceeded to judgment uncontested. The estate argued that it was incorrectly notified because the “advisor” had no legal authority to accept the notice and the incorrect address was used. Quoth the Appellate Division, “The trial court was not persuaded and neither are we.” The Court found that the advisor was indeed an agent of the estate, sent by the estate to the municipality to deal with its tax liability. Consequently, the estate was unable to drop him when it suited it. The estate also had failed to take advantage of several opportunities to give the municipality the correct address to which notice should have been sent. The Court found that notice was notice, however it was given, and the estate had had sufficient notice.

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.