443 P.3d 151
Idaho2019Background
- Ronald and Donna Phelps owned seven lots in Boise County; they stopped paying property taxes after 2009 and listed multiple mailing addresses in recorded deeds.
- Boise County ordered litigation guarantees, mailed "Notice of Pending Issue of Tax Deed" letters by certified and regular mail to multiple addresses on May 23, 2014, and published four weekly summaries in the county newspaper beginning June 18, 2014. Some certified envelopes were returned unclaimed.
- County commissioners issued tax deeds for Lot 26 and Lot 27 on July 22, 2014; Boise County later sold the lots at auction on September 15, 2015. The Hardys purchased the two lots, received quitclaim deeds, and made improvements.
- The Phelpses sued, claiming Boise County failed to give constitutionally adequate notice under Idaho Code § 63-1005 and the Due Process Clause, seeking to void the tax deeds; the Hardys sought to quiet title and alternatively sought unjust enrichment damages if deeds were invalid.
- At bench trial the district court found Boise County’s notice efforts, despite minor timing and typographical errors, satisfied the statute and due process; the court quieted title to the Hardys. The Phelpses appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Phelpses' Argument | Boise County / Hardys' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory notice timing under I.C. § 63-1005 — whether a temporal "attempt to locate" is required before publication | The statute requires a temporal sequence: only after certified mail is returned undelivered must the county "attempt to locate and serve" before resorting to publication | The statute does not impose that temporal step; counties may and should take reasonable steps (e.g., litigation guarantees) and need not repeat efforts each time certified mail is returned | Court held statute lacks the temporal requirement; reasonable attempts before publication suffice |
| Sufficiency of Boise County’s attempts to locate owners (due process) | County should have undertaken additional steps (e.g., use email address, further searches) after certified mail was returned; failures created fatal defect | County conducted reasonable efforts: litigation guarantees, searches, multiple mailings, email contact; additional searches were not required | Court held County’s efforts were reasonable and satisfied due process despite minor errors |
| Effect of minor statutory errors (mailing date, hearing date, one-day publication shortfall) | Errors rendered notice defective and deprived Phelpses of substantive rights | Errors were mere irregularities that did not affect substantive rights; Phelpses had actual knowledge/email notice and did not act | Court held the errors did not affect substantial rights and were not fatal defects |
| Attorneys’ fees on appeal | Fees requested by Phelpses? (none) | County and Hardys sought fees arguing appeal frivolous or baseless | Court denied attorney fees to both sides: County erred in details so not entitled; Phelpses’ appeal was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (when mailed notice is returned unclaimed, due process may require additional reasonable steps to notify owner)
- Giacobbi v. Hall, 109 Idaho 293 (1986) (county must conduct reasonable search and inquiry before publication when certified mail is undelivered)
- Western Loan & Bldg. Co. v. Bandel, 57 Idaho 101 (1936) (defective notice or misleading description that affects substantive rights can void tax deed)
- Salladay v. Bowen, 161 Idaho 563 (2016) (lack of required notice can be a fatal defect to tax deed)
- Sines v. Blaser, 100 Idaho 50 (1979) (giving of statutorily mandated notice is mandatory; lack is fatal)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)