CROWNOVER v. KEEL, 2015 OK 35

Crownover owned McIntosh County real property and stopped paying taxes after 2005; the property was offered at the 2010 tax resale.
County treasurer published statutory notice and mailed certified-mail notice to Crownover at the address of record; the certified-mail envelope was returned "Not Deliverable as Addressed Unable to Forward."
Keel purchased the property at resale and received a resale tax deed; Crownover only learned of the sale after Keel contacted him about personal property on the land.
Crownover sued the county officers and sought to quiet title, arguing the tax sale and deed were void because he had not received constitutionally adequate notice and was thereby denied redemption.
Trial court granted summary judgment for the County; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court held Crownover did not receive constitutionally adequate notice given the returned certified letter and that the County should have taken reasonable additional steps; the tax sale and deed were void and the grant of summary judgment to the County was reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether certified-mail notice that was returned undelivered satisfied due process before a tax resale.	Crownover: returned certified letter meant he had no actual notice; County had notice the mail failed and therefore had to take further reasonable steps.	County: statutory compliance (publication + mailing to address of record) satisfied notice; failure to receive notice doesn't invalidate sale.	Held: Returned certified mail created a "red flag"; County had to take additional reasonable steps; certified-mail return alone was constitutionally insufficient.
Whether strict compliance with 68 O.S. § 3106 alone satisfies federal and state due process.	Crownover: statutory compliance alone is not dispositive; due process requires notice reasonably calculated under the circumstances.	County: statute expressly provides "Failure to receive said notice shall not invalidate said sale," so mailing to address of record met due process.	Held: Statutory compliance is necessary but not always sufficient; when government knows mailed notice failed, additional steps are required to satisfy due process.
Remedy for deficient notice at tax sale.	Crownover: sale and resulting tax deed are void; title should be quieted in him.	County/Keel: sale valid; deed should stand.	Held: Sale and resale tax deed are void for lack of constitutionally adequate notice; case remanded.

Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (when mailed notice is returned unclaimed, state must take additional reasonable steps before sale)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 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; county must exercise reasonable diligence)
Garcia v. Ted Parks, L.L.C., 195 P.3d 1269 (Okla. 2008) (actual notice required where record owner lived on property and whereabouts were known)
Luster v. Bank of Chelsea, 730 P.2d 506 (Okla. 1986) (statutory notice may not satisfy due process under the totality of circumstances)