Widow loses home over $6.30 bill

[Hum]

BEAVER, PA (AP) ? A widow was given ample notice before her $280,000 house was sold at a tax auction three years ago over $6.30 in unpaid interest, a Pennsylvania judge has ruled.

The decision last week turned down Eileen Battisti's request to reverse the September 2011 sale of her home outside Aliquippa in western Pennsylvania.

"I paid everything, and didn't know about the $6.30," Battisti said. "For the house to be sold just because of $6.30 is crazy."

Battisti, who still lives in the house, said Monday that she plans to appeal to Commonwealth Court. That court earlier ordered an evidentiary hearing, which led to last week's ruling.

Beaver County Common Pleas Judge Gus Kwidis wrote that the county tax claim bureau complied with notification requirements in state law before the auction. She had previously owed other taxes, but at the time of the sale she owed just $235, including other interest and fees.

"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 property sold for about $116,000, and most of that money will be paid to Battisti if further appeals are unsuccessful.

Joe Askar, Beaver County's chief solicitor, said the judge got the decision right, based on the law.

"The county never wants to see anybody lose their home, but at the same time the tax sale law, the tax real estate law, doesn't give a whole lot of room for error, either," Askar said.

Battisti said her husband handled the paperwork for the property's taxes before he passed away in 2004.

"It's bad ? she had some hard times, I guess her husband kind of took care of a lot of that stuff," Askar said. "It seemed that she was having a hard time coping with the loss of her husband ? that just made it set in a little more."

source

[streetw0lf]

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of $6.30.

[xrobwx71]

There has to be more to it. Hell, if I was the judge, I would have paid the damn $6.30 to get the stupid ###### out of my courtroom. You mean to tell me that someone in the entire chain of this process didn't have $6.30? Pffft. :pinch:

[Guest]

Kill the judge with fire before it lays eggs!

[Hum]

There is supposedly Law that gives an Owner one year to pay off taxes, even if sold in a tax sale.

[xendrome]

Yeah there is more to this story, if anyone knows how the process goes with notification/posting etc... you'd know this isn't just something that happens overnight and without a LOT of notice(s)

[spacer]

I know they say they followed the tax law to the letter, but this is another scenario where common sense should trump law. This woman paid every other debt that she owed, and you're telling me she, for some reason, refused to pay a $6.30 bill? Come on.

 

They say they sent plenty of notifications, but mail goes missing all of the time. No one called her? No one came to talk to her face-to-face?

 

At the very least, where is the proof that they sent notifications? Where is the proof it was actually delivered. You would figure something this important would have been delivered directly to her; like, requiring a signature that she received it. There has to be more to this story.

[timster]

don't wanna pay your bills? then GTFO!

[astropheed Veteran]

Laws are laws. I feel sorry for her but the system is in place for a reason. I can almost guarantee she was given sufficient notice and I'd also wager there is quite a bit of paper trail proving just that. Silly scenario sure but it was probably brought about because of a silly or ignorant person.

[Piggy]

Why couldn't it have been $3.50!

 

Three fitty!

[compl3x]

Where is that militia who turned out to defend Clive Bundy? Maybe they can go out and stick up for this little old lady who the state is treating poorly. No?

 

 

I know they say they followed the tax law to the letter, but this is another scenario where common sense should trump law. This woman paid every other debt that she owed, and you're telling me she, for some reason, refused to pay a $6.30 bill? Come on.

 

 

 

Exactly. People talk about "the Law" as if it is some rigid idea that can't take basic commonsense into account. The only people who demand the law or the rules be followed to the letter without any concern for reason or logic are ######in' bureaucrats who get off on the idea of enforcing backwards ideas on people.

[astropheed Veteran]

Exactly. People talk about "the Law" as if it is some rigid idea that can't take basic commonsense into account. The only people who demand the law or the rules be followed to the letter without any concern for reason or logic are ####in' bureaucrats who get off on the idea of enforcing backwards ideas on people.

 

Applying common sense is one thing. Assuming the sense you think you're making as being actually sensible is another (and a bad idea). The problem isn't giving a little mercy or bending some rules. The problem is the repercussions of that action. You may think it's as simple as throwing the case out and moving on, but it's decidedly more complicated than that.

 

The reason the law is so strict on individual terms is because at one point or another a section of a section (of a section) was exploited or open to exploit. The reason it was exploitable was due to certain liberties being granted in the form of either A) Not having a law for it to begin with, or, B) "bending" the rules. This can only happen so many times before some one with (what I consider) reason goes, "Alright, no more of this. It may seem petty and immoral but we need to draw a line in the sand".

 

That line just happened to be $6.30 in this case. So that next time the line isn't $16.30.... and so on and so forth. There may even be consequence outside of that that I'm not even considering, actually I can almost damn well guarantee it.

[Stokkolm]

Applying common sense is one thing. Assuming the sense you think you're making as being actually sensible is another (and a bad idea). The problem isn't giving a little mercy or bending some rules. The problem is the repercussions of that action. You may think it's as simple as throwing the case out and moving on, but it's decidedly more complicated than that.

 

The reason the law is so strict on individual terms is because at one point or another a section of a section (of a section) was exploited or open to exploit. The reason it was exploitable was due to certain liberties being granted in the form of either A) Not having a law for it to begin with, or, B) "bending" the rules. This can only happen so many times before some one with (what I consider) reason goes, "Alright, no more of this. It may seem petty and immoral but we need to draw a line in the sand".

 

That line just happened to be $6.30 in this case. So that next time the line isn't $16.30.... and so on and so forth. There may even be consequence outside of that that I'm not even considering, actually I can almost damn well guarantee it.

Are you freaking serious? Some laws need to be rigid, like murder laws... in this case there was definitely some room for leeway. How it even got to the point of an auction for unpaid taxes is beyond me. The government does all sorts of crazy ###### like garnish wages, they couldn't garnish $6.30 instead of putting her home up for auction? Seriously, it's ridiculous!

[Auditor]

Nah.. there must be more to it. Even Revenue Canada does almost $10 administrative adjustments. 

[astropheed Veteran]

Are you freaking serious?

 

Yes.

[Mr. Gibs]

Yes.

Can you prove she got the mail? #### gets lost in the mail all the time. Twice now in about 1 1/2 years I've had a bill get delivered to another house in my neighborhood. Luckily my neighbors brought it over and I didn't get a late payment charge or anything. Granted we have one of those big shared mailboxes but still, it's not that hard to put the mail in the correct box.

That's why whenever I send anything of importance to the government (taxes etc) I always, always, ALWAYS pay a tiny bit extra to get a signature and tracking. That way if they claim they never got it, bam here's the proof that you did. And if they didn't get it, well here's the proof that I mailed it.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

I know they say they followed the tax law to the letter, but this is another scenario where common sense should trump law. This woman paid every other debt that she owed, and you're telling me she, for some reason, refused to pay a $6.30 bill? Come on.

They say they sent plenty of notifications, but mail goes missing all of the time. No one called her? No one came to talk to her face-to-face?

At the very least, where is the proof that they sent notifications? Where is the proof it was actually delivered. You would figure something this important would have been delivered directly to her; like, requiring a signature that she received it. There has to be more to this story.

There is no room for leeway. The United States is a common law country. This is not a criminal case. Any "leeway" would establish precedent carving out exclusions to the statute.

There is no legal argument that can be made here for establishing such a precedence.

[compl3x]

Applying common sense is one thing. Assuming the sense you think you're making as being actually sensible is another (and a bad idea). The problem isn't giving a little mercy or bending some rules. The problem is the repercussions of that action. You may think it's as simple as throwing the case out and moving on, but it's decidedly more complicated than that.

 

The reason the law is so strict on individual terms is because at one point or another a section of a section (of a section) was exploited or open to exploit. The reason it was exploitable was due to certain liberties being granted in the form of either A) Not having a law for it to begin with, or, B) "bending" the rules. This can only happen so many times before some one with (what I consider) reason goes, "Alright, no more of this. It may seem petty and immoral but we need to draw a line in the sand".

 

That line just happened to be $6.30 in this case. So that next time the line isn't $16.30.... and so on and so forth. There may even be consequence outside of that that I'm not even considering, actually I can almost damn well guarantee it.

 

 

Slippery slope argument much? "Gee, if we don't mercilessly punish trivial debts the next thing you know we'll be turning a blind eye to drug dealers laundering money!"

 

Losing your home over a $6.30 is insane and stupid beyond description. It's not outside the realm of commonsense to accept an old lady, whose husband probably dealt with their finances their entire life, accidentally neglected this debt. As I posted before, only a heartless bureaucrat would demand she be punished so disproportionately. This isn't just, or an example of administrating the law consistently, it is a deranged example of government cruelty.

[astropheed Veteran]

Slippery slope argument much? "Gee, if we don't mercilessly punish trivial debts the next thing you know we'll be turning a blind eye to drug dealers laundering money!"

 

Without as much hyperbole, yes. It's frustrating, I know.

 

Fortunately, that same law is allowing her to appeal this, should be thankful, I guess. It's a much better scenario than say, "We sold your house and it wasn't really yours anyways; get over it". Although I'm well aware people in general don't feel any assurance through motivation by way of "well at least you don't have to X" type debates, but, I'm pretty sure that sort of thing does actually happen.

 

Shame this happened, and I am sympathetic. In general the law is pretty good though and this seems like a cheap shot at its structure without enough evidence to state how it got to this point to begin with. Which, I'm really skeptical of. There is something missing.