Can a Party That Becomes An Owner of Property by Assignment of a Post- Upset Sale Mortgage and Municipal Claim Seek Redemption ?

In City of Philadelphia v. Taggart, 379 Pa. 7, 108 A.2d 68 (1954), the Supreme Court considered whether a party that had become an owner of property by assignment of a post-upset sale mortgage and municipal claim, could pursue an action under Section 32 of the Act to redeem the property. The applicant in that case relied upon Section 33, 53 P.S. 7147, for the proposition that, as an assignee, he had the same right under the Act to redeem the property as the original holder of the interest. Following its earlier decision in Haughey v. Dillon, 379 Pa. 1, 108 A.2d 69 (1954), the Court opined that the General Assembly "intended that only those whose claims or interests were discharged by the tax sale should have the right of redemption. It did not give such right to those who acquired the claims subsequent to the sale." 379 Pa. at 5, 108 A.2d at 69. Thus, these two decisions to some extent limit the rights bestowed by virtue of assignment or transfer under the broad language of Section 33. In the first example, the strict interpretation rested on the specific legislative limitation of the parties that can pursue relief against a property owner in an assumpsit action. In the second example, the Court limited the right to seek redemption following a tax upset sale to those who had an interest in the property before the sale occurred.