CROWNOVER v. KEEL
2015 OK 35
| Okla. | 2015Background
- Vernon L. Crownover owned McIntosh County real property but stopped paying taxes after a 2005 payment; property went to 2010 tax resale.
- County complied with 68 O.S. §3106 by publishing notice and sending certified mail to Crownover's address of record; the certified envelope was returned "Not Deliverable as Addressed Unable to Forward."
- Garland Keel purchased the property at the resale and received a resale tax deed; Keel later contacted Crownover and Crownover learned of the sale.
- Crownover sued the county officials seeking to quiet title and to void the tax deed, asserting he received no constitutionally adequate notice and was denied redemption.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the County; Court of Civil Appeals affirmed; Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding the sale void for lack of constitutionally sufficient notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certified-mail notice returned undelivered satisfied due process before tax resale | Crownover: return of certified mail was a "red flag"; county had duty to take additional reasonable steps to notify and thus failed to provide constitutionally adequate notice | County: complied with statutory notice (publication + mailing to address of record); statute states failure to receive notice does not invalidate sale; burden on owner to update address | Held: Return of certified mail required further reasonable efforts; statutory compliance alone insufficient when mail is returned undelivered; sale and tax deed are void |
| Whether owner's failure to update address forfeits constitutional notice rights | Crownover: even if he failed to update address, county still had duty to try other reasonable means once notice was returned | County: owner must notify county of address change; county not required to search beyond records | Held: Owner's failure to update does not relieve county of duty to take additional steps after notice is returned undelivered |
| Whether publication plus mailed notice (per statute) always cures due process concerns | Crownover: publication + returned certified mail is not reasonably calculated to give notice | County: statute expressly permits sale despite failure to receive notice | Held: Statutory language does not supersede constitutional due process; when mailed notice is returned, additional measures are required if practicable |
| Whether summary judgment for County was appropriate | Crownover: undisputed facts show certified notice returned; no further effort by county; material facts entitle him to judgment | County: compliance with statute created no genuine issue; summary judgment proper | Held: Summary judgment for County improper; case remanded for further proceedings consistent with holding |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (when mailed notice is returned unclaimed, state must take additional reasonable steps to attempt notice 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)
- Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (U.S. 1983) (notice mailed to last known address can satisfy due process in some contexts)
- Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (U.S. 2002) (actual notice not always required; reasonableness standard applies)
- Luster v. Bank of Chelsea, 730 P.2d 506 (Okla. 1986) (statutory compliance may be insufficient; totality of circumstances governs due process)
- Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Ziegler, 780 P.2d 703 (Okla. 1989) (absence of return receipt is a red flag; mailing without proof of receipt can be constitutionally deficient)
- Garcia v. Ted Parks, L.L.C., 195 P.3d 1269 (Okla. 2008) (failure to give actual notice to an owner living on the property and whose whereabouts were known undermines tax sale validity)