2014 COA 133
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Carl and Wanda Cordell were record owners of adjoining La Plata County tracts; taxes went unpaid and tax liens were purchased and assigned to Bradley Klingsheim.
- Klingsheim requested treasurer's deeds; the La Plata County Treasurer published statutory notices and mailed certified copies to the Cordells at the address shown on the county tax roll (705 N. Vine).
- Certified-mail return receipts showed the mail was signed for by "Cleo Cordell" at 703 N. Vine (not the addressees and not marked as "agent"); the mailed envelopes were not returned as undeliverable.
- After receiving the signed return receipts, the Treasurer made no further inquiry (did not recheck tax rolls, assessor, or clerk/recorder records) and later issued treasurer's deeds to Klingsheim.
- The Cordells sued; the trial court found the Treasurer failed to undertake the statutorily required "diligent inquiry" to determine residences and declared the treasurer's deeds void. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cordell) | Defendant's Argument (Klingsheim/Treasurer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Treasurer undertook "diligent inquiry" under § 39-11-128 before issuing treasurer's deeds | Treasurers must re-examine county records after a return receipt shows the mailing was not delivered to the intended recipient; no recheck here = no diligent inquiry | Reliance on assessor/tax roll and receipt by a person at the household (agent) was sufficient; further efforts would have been futile | Held: The Treasurer failed to perform diligent inquiry by not re-examining county records after return receipts indicated mail was not delivered to the addressees; deed void |
| Whether service via certified mail signed by a third party at a different street number constituted effective notice/agent service | Cordells argued service was defective because mail did not reach them personally and was signed by someone else at a different address | Klingsheim argued the mail went to the address of record and was received by the addressee's agent/household member, which suffices | Held (lead): focus is on Treasurer's diligence; the absence of further inquiry rendered the deed void. (Dissent would have held agent receipt sufficient as actual notice) |
| Whether harmless-error analysis or post-hoc showing of futility can cure noncompliance with notice statute | Cordells: failure to comply cannot be cured by post-hoc proof of futility; compliance is jurisdictional | Treasurer: subsequent proof that further inquiry would not have produced a different result should render the noncompliance harmless | Held: Compliance is jurisdictional; harmless-error/futility after the fact does not validate a deed issued without statutorily required diligent inquiry |
| Whether separate mailed notice to co-owner (Wanda) was required | Wanda argued she required a separate envelope/notice | Treasurer argued joint mailing to both at the address of record was adequate | Held: Court did not reach separate-owner argument in detail because primary defect (lack of diligent inquiry) voided the deeds; dissent would reject separate-mail requirement and find no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Siler v. Inv. Sec. Co., 244 P.2d 877 (Colo. 1952) (failure to make diligent inquiry voids treasurer's deed)
- Concord Corp. v. Huff, 355 P.2d 73 (Colo. 1960) (full statutory compliance is jurisdictional for treasurer's deeds)
- Schmidt v. Langel, 874 P.2d 447 (Colo. App. 1993) (when mailed notice is returned undelivered, treasurer must re-examine county records for alternative addresses)
- Bald Eagle Mining & Refin. Co. v. Brunton, 437 P.2d 59 (Colo. 1968) (treasurer must consult available county records when correct address is readily discoverable)
- Parkison v. Burley, 667 P.2d 780 (Colo. App. 1983) (diligent inquiry requires further record checks where those checks would show current address)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (due process may require additional reasonable steps after returned mail if those steps could be effective)
- Walter v. Harrison, 70 P.2d 335 (Colo. 1937) (treasurer may rely on assessor records; further inquiry not required absent indication of alternate current address)
- Johnson v. Dunkel, 288 P.2d 343 (Colo. 1955) (actual notice may defeat a statutory-noncompliance challenge)