PART 4 :Sold for Pennies: Inside Delaware County’s Tax Sale Cartel
CJD Group, the Tax Claim Bureau, and the council president who keeps his properties while seniors lose theirs at upset sale
This article is a direct follow‑up to “Part #3 – Rules for Thee, Not for They: How Delco’s Council President Used a 91‑Year‑Old Woman to Cover His Own Tax Delinquencies,” which documented how Council President Richard Womack’s $91,000 in unpaid taxes contrasted with the County’s treatment of Gloria Gaynor’s $3,500 delinquency and the forced sale of her $247,000 home.
Delaware County officials insist their tax sale system simply “enforces the law” against people who don’t pay their property taxes. The case files tell a different story. Across multiple households and years, tax‑sale victims, estates, and small owners are now in court swearing that the Delaware County Tax Claim Bureau ignored strict legal notice requirements, cut corners on due process, and then let a favored investor, CJD Group, LLC, walk off with homes for pennies on the dollar.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
When those owners fight back with counsel, judges are being asked to—and sometimes do vacate sales, refund CJD’s money, and restore title to the original owners. The County, meanwhile, keeps the one thing that never seems to be at risk: its tax revenue, fees, and commissions.[10][11]
This is not tax collection as most people understand it. It is a tax sale machine that functions, case after case, as a form of theft by deception.
How Delaware County’s upset sales generate cash
Under Pennsylvania’s Real Estate Tax Sale Law (RETSL), when property taxes go unpaid, the Tax Claim Bureau can expose the property to an upset sale. At that auction:[12][10]
· The Bureau sets an “upset price” that includes:
o All delinquent taxes,
o Interest and penalties, and
o Bureau fees and costs.[9][10]
· A bidder (often CJD Group) must pay at least that amount; otherwise, the property doesn’t sell.[13][9]
By design, the County and school districts:
· Always get 100% of what they say they are owed as soon as the upset price is paid.
· The Tax Claim Bureau takes a 5% commission on collections and adds line‑item fees for notices, postings, and title work.[11][10]
· The County also keeps interest on sale proceeds and any unclaimed surplus it holds for up to three years.[14][10]
For the public, that looks like “efficient collection.” For the people on the wrong end of the system, it means:
· A modest tax delinquency—often a few thousand dollars—can destroy six‑figure equity in a home.
· The County’s financial position improves regardless of whether the sale was lawful or just. Even if a judge later sets a sale aside, the County has already cleaned its books and held the money.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County warns that when government uses a small tax debt as a springboard to confiscate surplus equity, it crosses the line into an unconstitutional taking. Delaware County’s upset‑sale machine pushes right up to that line—and then past it—while claiming RETSL compliance.[15][16][17]
Case study 1: Gloria Gaynor — a 91‑year‑old loses a paid‑off home
Gloria J. Gaynor, a 91‑year‑old Jamaican immigrant, lost her long‑paid‑off home at 335 Wayne Avenue, Lansdowne over a 2020 tax delinquency of roughly $3,500. Delaware County’s Tax Claim Bureau exposed her property at upset sale on September 22, 2022, where CJD Group, LLC bought it for an upset price of about $14,419—the total of taxes, interest, penalties, and fees.[18][19][20][21]
Public valuations place the home’s true worth well over $247,000, meaning the County’s process wiped out hundreds of thousands in equity while collecting only a few thousand dollars in tax debt.[19][21][18]
Gaynor’s petitions and motions raise fundamental questions:
· Whether a valid § 306 “return” was ever filed to create a lawful real estate tax claim under RETSL; without it, the Bureau had no jurisdiction to sell.[22][1][10]
· Whether certified‑mail and posting notices ever properly reached her, given age, health, and mail issues documented in her filings and testimony.[23][24][1]
The Commonwealth Court ultimately framed her appeal as a narrow question of whether the upset‑sale price was “grossly inadequate” and whether she preserved a notice challenge. In that technical posture, the sale survived.[18][19]
What the appellate record does not capture is the human cost:
· A 91‑year‑old, long‑time homeowner whose home equity became a plug in the County’s tax ledger.
· A sale where the County and Bureau collected everything they wanted—taxes plus fees—while CJD acquired a valuable home at a deep discount.[21][19][18]
Gloria’s case is Tyler in local form: a small tax debt leveraged into an almost total equity wipe‑out, with no realistic path for a frail elderly owner to reclaim her surplus value.[16][17][15]
Case study 2: Curtis and Mehta — heirs and small owners fighting forged green cards and phantom postings
Annie Pearl Curtis / Felicia Scott — Sharon Hill
In Curtis, the Tax Claim Bureau sold 1440 Walter Avenue, Sharon Hill (Folio 15‑00‑03883‑00) at the same September 22, 2022 upset sale, again with CJD as buyer. The petition alleges:[2]
· Total taxes due were about $2,293.02.
· The property sold for $62,000—still only a fraction of its likely market value.[2]
· Original owner Annie Pearl Curtis had died; her daughter Felicia Scott inherited the house and lived there.
· Scott was never personally served, never received certified‑mail notice, and never saw any posted notice on the property.[2]
Citing Tracy v. Chester County and McKean County upset‑sale precedent, Scott argues:
· RETSL § 602’s three notice requirements—publication, certified mail, and conspicuous posting—must be strictly complied with.
· Any defect in those notices voids the sale because due process is not satisfied.[2]
The proposed order attached to her petition directs that the September 22, 2022 sale “is set aside”, voiding CJD’s purchase and restoring her rights.[2]
VRAJ Estates / Mitesh Mehta — Aston
In VRAJ Estates, LLC v. Delaware County Tax Claim Bureau (Mehta), the Bureau exposed 67 Seward Lane, Aston at the September 19, 2024 upset sale. The facts from VRAJ’s brief are damning:[3]
· Upset price: roughly $5,300.65 in 2021–2022 taxes and costs.[3]
· CJD bought the property for $112,000 at sale—over 20 times the tax debt.[3]
· The Bureau claimed to have sent restricted‑delivery certified mail to a Virginia address (used once for a mobile closing) and relied on a green‑card “signature” that:
o Did not match owner Mitesh Mehta’s signature on the deed.
o Was written in printed letters, not a signature.
o Was supposedly signed on a date when Mehta and his family were in India, supported by travel documents.[3]
· Despite this, the Bureau:
o Never sent notices to VRAJ’s registered office in King of Prussia, which it had identified from corporate records.
o Admitted it knew postal workers sometimes sign green cards but chose to treat this one as valid anyway.[3]
· CJD and the Bureau also failed to provide competent evidence that the property was conspicuously and securely posted, offering only a boilerplate sheriff’s affidavit without details on location, visibility, or method.[3]
VRAJ’s brief argues that:
· Under § 607.1(a), once circumstances raise “significant doubt” about actual receipt, the Bureau must make reasonable additional efforts—including using alternate addresses and phone numbers it already had.[3]
· The Bureau’s failure to mail to the registered office or follow up on the suspect signature violated RETSL and due process, and the sale must be set aside.[3]
Together, Curtis and Mehta show a pattern: when a big buyer like CJD is in the wings, the Bureau is willing to accept obviously defective notice as “good enough,” rather than take simple extra steps to ensure owners and heirs actually know their homes are about to be sold.
Case study 3: Estates blindsided — Kevin Wilson and the Warner/Boerger affidavits
Estate of Kevin Wilson — Garnet Valley
The Estate of Kevin Wilson challenges the September 21, 2023 upset sale of 5103 Poplar Street, Garnet Valley. The petition recounts:[4]
· Bonnie Wilson bought the property in 2017; her son Kevin Wilson inherited it under her 2018 will.[4]
· Kevin suffered severe physical and mental health problems—hypertension, diabetes, bilateral leg amputation, cognitive decline—from 2020 onward, which impaired his ability to manage finances despite having funds.[4]
· Taxes for 2021 and 2022 went unpaid.
· Kevin received some sale notice shortly before his death in August 2023 but, given his condition, did nothing.[4]
· His will was probated on August 24, 2023; Executrix Kelli Barth never received any tax‑sale notice.
· The Tax Claim Bureau sold the property at upset sale on September 21, 2023 without notice to the estate or executrix.[4]
The estate asserts a statutory right to redeem and/or set aside the sale because the house remained continuously inhabited and notice to the personal representative never occurred. Again, the story is the same: a vulnerable owner, a rapid decline, and a Bureau that did just enough on paper to sell the home, but not enough to make sure the estate’s legal representative understood what was happening.[4]
Warner & Boerger — Ridley Township
In Warner/Boerger v. County of Delaware, Tax Claim Bureau, two sworn affidavits tell a simple story about 301 Lawnton Terrace, Ridley Township:
· Mary Jo Warner has lived there since 2012 with her partner; Daniel Boerger is her brother.[5][6]
· The property went through a September 2019 upset sale.
· Both Warner and Boerger swear:
o They never received mailed notice from the Bureau that the property would be sold.
o The property was never posted with any upset‑sale notice.
o Their first awareness of the sale came in May 2020, when Fox Rothschild, LLP wrote to say a complaint had been filed against them.[6][5]
Once again, the pattern repeats: no real notice, followed by a law‑firm letter in the wake of a completed sale.
Case study 4: Kelly Martin Clough — when a judge actually unwinds CJD’s deal
The Kelly Martin Clough matter shows what happens when a homeowner with counsel forces the court to scrutinize the Bureau’s work.
· Property: 771 Conestoga Road, Rosemont (Radnor Township), parcel 36‑07‑04392‑00.[7]
· Alleged delinquent taxes: $2,338.36.[7]
· Upset sale: September 18, 2025, with CJD Group, LLC as the successful bidder.[7]
· Initial court step: an Order of Confirmation Nisi entered November 3, 2025, presuming the sale valid unless challenged.[7]
Clough’s Objections and Exceptions to Confirmation of Sale allege:
· She has long owned and maintained the property but since 2019 has been staying in Radnor caring for her mother with stage‑4 cancer, while still receiving mail at the property.[7]
· The Bureau claims:
o It sent certified mail to the property on August 9, 2025 and that the return receipt was “refused.”
o It posted the house on July 24, 2025.
o It left a voicemail at a phone number she does not recognize.[7]
· Clough swears:
o She never refused any certified mail and never authorized anyone to refuse it.
o She never saw any posting on the property and no neighbor ever alerted her.
o The phone number used by the Bureau is not hers; the only number she actually uses appears later in their own records, when she called them on September 19, 2025, after learning from the buyer that the sale had already occurred.[7]
Her memorandum relies on the same RETSL framework as Curtis and Mehta:
· Section 602 requires publication, certified mail, and posting; if any one is missing or defective, the sale must be set aside.[10][7]
· Courts have repeatedly invalidated sales where green cards are signed or refused by unauthorized third parties.[7]
The attached form of order does exactly that:
· Vacates the Confirmation Nisi.
· Orders the Bureau to refund all monies to CJD Group, LLC.
· Directs that title remain vested in Kelly Martin Clough, who must pay the taxes within 30 days.[7]
Here, in black and white, a Delaware County judge is being asked to—and your file suggests prepared to—tell the Bureau and CJD: this sale cannot stand.
The common denominator: CJD Group and defective County process
Across all these cases—Gaynor, Curtis, Mehta/VRAJ, Estate of Kevin Wilson, Warner/Boerger, Clough—three consistent features emerge:
1. Same buyer, same counsel
o CJD Group, LLC appears again and again as the upset‑sale purchaser.
o It buys homes with small delinquencies at substantial discounts from market value, particularly where owners are elderly, sick, recently deceased, or absent.[1][5][6][19][21][18][2][4][3][7]
o Same buyer, same big‑law counsel. CJD Group, LLC is the recurring purchaser at Delaware County upset sales, and it is represented by Edward J. Hayes of Fox Rothschild LLP, who has defended CJD’s acquisitions in Gloria Gaynor’s appeal and other tax‑sale and quiet‑title actions across Pennsylvania
2. Defective or suspect notice practices by the Tax Claim Bureau
o Certified mail sent to:
§ Wrong or one‑off addresses (Virginia closing address in Mehta).
§ Deceased owners, with no follow‑up to estates or executors (Estate of Kevin Wilson).
§ Addresses where the owner is known to be away caring for a dying parent (Clough).[4][3][7]
o Green cards:
§ Signed by unknown persons or postal workers, with signatures that do not match the owner.
§ Marked “refused” when the owner swears they were not there and did not instruct anyone to refuse.[3][7]
o Postings:
§ Boilerplate sheriff’s affidavits with no detail on location, security, or visibility.
§ Owners and neighbors swear no notices were ever seen.[5][6][2][3][7]
3. County and Bureau financial incentives to look the other way
Regardless of whether these sales later survive or are unwound:
· The County gets:
o All delinquent taxes and interest,
o Bureau fees and a 5% commission,
o Interest on held funds,
o Cleaner delinquent‑tax stats for budget and political optics.[11][12][10]
· The Bureau has no real penalty for running a defective sale. At worst, it refunds the purchase price and processes paperwork when a court orders a do‑over.
· CJD can afford to litigate and lose a few; the spread between upset‑sale prices and market value on the ones it keeps still makes the business model profitable.
The people who cannot afford this game are the homeowners and heirs.
The double standard: ordinary people lose homes, the council president keeps his
Adding to the picture is the way Delaware County treats its own leadership.
Public reporting shows that Council President Richard Womack owes roughly $91,000 in delinquent property taxes on two properties—about three times the size of the debts that triggered upset sales for people like Gaynor, Curtis, Mehta, and Clough.[25][26][27]
Yet:
· Womack’s properties have never been scheduled for upset sale.
· He has been placed on a quiet payment plan, which County officials characterize as routine and insist does not interfere with his ability to serve on council.[28][29][25]
· At the same time, the council he helps lead has raised county property taxes by more than 50% in three years, heightening pressure on everyone else.[27][25]
For the public, the message is unmistakable:
· If you are an ordinary homeowner behind a few thousand dollars, the Tax Claim Bureau will:
o Push your property to an upset sale,
o Accept a suspect green card,
o Treat a boilerplate sheriff’s affidavit as proof of posting,
o Sell your home to CJD, and
o Tell the court it “followed the law.”[6][1][5][2][4][3][7]
· If you are the council president, with arrears in the neighborhood of $91,000, you get:
o A confidential payment arrangement,
o No sale, no public posting, no loss of title,
o And the continued power to vote on the very tax policies that fuel upset sales against your constituents.[26][29][25][27]
That is not neutral enforcement. It is enforcement as a political and financial weapon.
Why this is more than “equity theft”: the case for theft by deception
“Equity theft” describes what happens when government takes more property value than the tax debt justifies and keeps the surplus. Tyler says that is unconstitutional. In Delaware County, the problem goes deeper.[17][30][15][16]
This looks like theft by deception because:
· The County and Bureau present their tax‑sale process to courts and the public as strictly lawful, while internal records and sworn petitions repeatedly expose systematic deviations from RETSL’s notice and due‑process requirements.[1][5][6][2][4][3][7]
· They rely on the appearance of compliance—any scribble on a green card, any generic posting affidavit—rather than actual, meaningful notice “reasonably calculated” to reach owners and heirs.[11][3][7]
· They know that most victims cannot afford lawyers to file petitions and exceptions. For every Curtis, Mehta, Wilson, Warner, Boerger, or Clough who fights back, there are likely many others who simply lose homes and equity quietly.
· Meanwhile, insiders like Womack, and institutional actors like CJD, benefit from a system that favors them structurally, even as they assure the public that no one is above the law.[29][25][28]
The pattern is consistent:
1. Mislead homeowners, heirs, and the public into believing all statutory and constitutional safeguards are being followed.
2. Monetize the resulting upset sales through taxes, fees, and commissions.
3. Privatize the upside to favored investors like CJD while externalizing the human cost—displacement, loss of generational wealth, health decline—onto families.
4. Shield insiders from the very consequences imposed on everyone else.
That is why this story is not just about paperwork errors or a few “bad” sales. It is about a county‑level machine that has learned it can convert confusion, vulnerability, and legal complexity into revenue and political power—while calling it nothing more than the rule of law.
SOURCES- link here for google docs for court filings https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1eB1Y0JBIPIYqbW47n7mff4jT8DMRDEXr?usp=drive_link
1. Petitiontosetasidesale.pdf
2. Curtissameallegations.pdf
3. mehtaclaimnodueprocesstaxlien.pdf
4. estatekevinwilson.pdf
5. affidavitMaryJowerner.pdf
6. affidavitDanielBoerger.pdf
7. KEllyCLOUGH.pdf
8. http://www.delcopa.gov/open-records
9. http://delcopa.gov/treasurer/upsetinstructions
10. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/PDF/1947/0/0542..PDF
11. https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2099&context=dlra
12. https://www.timoneyknox.com/tax-sales-in-pennsylvania-a-guide-to-your-rights/
13. http://delcopa.gov/treasurer/upsetsales
14. https://www.montgomerycountypa.gov/2596/Outstanding-Surplus-Checks
15. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_8n59.pdf
16. https://library.nclc.org/article/supreme-court-stops-equity-theft-property-tax-foreclosures
17. https://www.parealtors.org/blog/a-recent-us-supreme-court-ruling-and-its-effect-on-tax-sales/
18. https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/commonwealth-court/2025/580-c-d-2023.html
19. https://app.midpage.ai/case/g-j-gaynor-v-delaware-10784974
20. https://patch.com/pennsylvania/media/delco-woman-91-being-evicted-home-tax-kerfuffle
21. https://abc7news.com/post/property-tax-sales-threaten-american-dream-local-homeowners/16845554/
22. PA_RTKL_REQUEST-1.pdf
23. brieffiledafterhearingbyCJD.pdf
24. A23970-Trancript-03-28-2023.pdf
28. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1603969713158309/posts/4486651011556817/
31. CJDANSWER.pdf
32. motiontostrikenewmatterbygloria.pdf
33. testimonyofJanineHeileintaxbureauJOspiriLLC.pdf
34. mehtaclaimnodueprocesstaxlien.pdf
35. Curtissameallegations.pdf
36. TEXT-MESSAGES.docx
37. Mortgage_Comparison__Stone_Bay_vs__Dignazio.csv
38. Tax-Office-Documents.pdf
39. Stone-Bay-Mortgage.pdf
40. PNC-checks-RTK-and-Quiet-title.pdf
41. STONE-BAY-AUDIT.docx
42. Transcript-of-distribution.pdf
43. Curtissameallegations.pdf
44. mehtaclaimnodueprocesstaxlien.pdf
45. KEllyCLOUGH.pdf
46. affidavitMaryJowerner.pdf
47. affidavitDanielBoerger.pdf
48. MORTGAGE-DIGNAZIO.pdf
49. interrogatories.pdf
50. mehtaclaimnodueprocesstaxlien.pdf
Disclaimer: Certain documents, pleadings, and affidavits referenced in this article come from ongoing or recently litigated cases and are not yet available to the general public through open, searchable databases. These materials are, however, accessible to courts, parties, and counsel through the official records of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas and related legal filings, and can be produced or authenticated as needed for legal purposes
This expose comes at the perfekt time. A crucial system exploit follow-up to Part 3. Brilliant.