CROWNOVER v. KEEL
357 P.3d 470
| Okla. | 2015Background
- Vernon L. Crownover owned Melntosh County real property, paid 2005 taxes, then stopped paying subsequent taxes.
- County published statutory notice and mailed certified notices to the address of record; the certified envelope to Crownover was returned "Not Deliverable as Addressed / Unable to Forward."
- Property was sold at the 2010 tax resale and Garland Keel received a resale tax deed; Crownover learned of the sale only after contacting Keel about personal property left on the land.
- Crownover sued to quiet title, arguing the resale deed was void because he received no actual notice and the County knew the mail was undeliverable.
- Trial court and Court of Civil Appeals granted summary judgment for the County; Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- Supreme Court held that returned certified-mail notice without additional reasonable steps violated due process and voided the tax sale; case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certified-mail notice alone satisfies due process when returned undelivered | Crownover: returned certified mail showed actual nonreceipt; County had duty to take further reasonable steps to notify him | County: it complied with 68 O.S. § 3106 (publication + mail); statute allows sale even if notice not received; burden on owner to update address | Held: Due process requires additional reasonable steps when mailed certified notice is returned undelivered; certified mail alone was constitutionally insufficient |
| Whether statutory compliance (68 O.S. § 3106) is always constitutionally sufficient | Crownover: statutory compliance does not trump constitutional notice requirements when County knew notice failed | County: literal compliance with statute satisfies due process; statute states failure to receive notice does not invalidate sale | Held: Statutory compliance is not dispositive; constitutional notice standards can require more than statutory procedures |
| Scope of County's obligation to attempt further notice after undeliverable return | Crownover: County should have used reasonable follow-up methods (e.g., posting on property, regular mail, simple inquiry) | County: obligating more would impose impractical burdens and effectively require actual notice; owner must keep address updated | Held: County must take additional reasonable, practicable steps (short of open-ended searches) once it knows certified mail failed |
| Remedy when notice is constitutionally deficient | Crownover: tax sale and resale deed are void; quiet title relief warranted | County/Keel: sale valid under statute; title vested in purchaser | Held: Sale and resale tax deed are void for lack of constitutional notice; summary judgment for County reversed and cause remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (when certified mail is returned unclaimed, state must take additional reasonable steps to attempt notice before selling property)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Ziegler, 780 P.2d 703 (Okla. 1989) (mailing without proof of receipt is a "red flag" that triggers further diligence; mere mailing is not actual notice)
- Garcia v. Ted Parks, L.L.C., 195 P.3d 1269 (Okla. 2008) (actual notice required when record owner is living on the property and whereabouts are known)
- Luster v. Bank of Chelsea, 730 P.2d 506 (Okla. 1986) (constitutional due process may demand more than statutory notice under the totality of circumstances)