Gary Kluender, Jr. v. Plum Grove Investments, Inc., 985 N.W.2d 466

Gary Kluender owned farmland in Floyd County, stopped paying property taxes, and the parcel was sold at tax sale in June 2017; Plum Grove purchased a certificate of purchase.
Iowa Code §447.9 requires a certificate holder, after 1 year 9 months, to serve a 90‑day redemption notice by both regular first‑class mail and certified mail to the taxpayer’s last known address; service is complete when deposited and postmarked.
In April 2020 Plum Grove mailed the §447.9 notice to Kluender’s parcel and to his last known address by both certified and regular mail; the certified letter to his house was returned undeliverable but the regular mailings were not returned.
Kluender did not redeem; after 90 days the treasurer issued a tax deed to Plum Grove in August 2020; Plum Grove’s subsequent eviction demand was received by Kluender.
Kluender sued, alleging §447.9 is facially unconstitutional because it does not require personal (actual) service; the district court granted summary judgment for Plum Grove. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding the statute satisfies due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Iowa Code §447.9 is facially unconstitutional for not requiring personal service of the 90‑day notice	§447.9 is inadequate on its face because mail service risks erroneous deprivation; Mathews balancing favors requiring personal service or proof of actual receipt	Mullane governs notice claims; the statute’s dual‑mailing requirement (regular + certified) and 90‑day period are reasonably calculated to provide notice and are constitutionally adequate	Rejected — §447.9 is facially valid; dual mailings plus long redemption period satisfy due process
Whether Kluender received due process under the statute as applied	He did not get actual notice before deprivation; certified mail was returned undelivered	Plum Grove complied with §447.9; regular mailings were not returned and Kluender later received an eviction notice, so due process was satisfied	Rejected — on these facts Kluender received constitutionally adequate notice and the tax deed was proper

Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (actual notice not required; mailed notice usually suffices but if mailed notice is returned unclaimed, additional reasonable steps may be required)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due‑process notice must be reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three‑part balancing test for determining required procedural protections)
Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002) (Mathews is not an all‑embracing test for notice adequacy; Mullane framework controls notice cases)
Tulsa Professional Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (1988) (recognizes mail service as an inexpensive, efficient mechanism reasonably calculated to provide actual notice)
Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (1983) (mail notice may satisfy constitutional requirements)
War Eagle Village Apartments v. Plummer, 775 N.W.2d 714 (Iowa 2009) (Iowa case holding FED statutes unconstitutional where certified‑mail‑only service and short timeframes made meaningful notice unlikely)
Dohrn v. Mooring Tax Asset Grp., L.L.C., 743 N.W.2d 857 (Iowa 2008) (explains tax‑sale certificate is an inchoate lien; compliance with §447.9 is required before issuing a tax deed)