93 A.3d 131
Vt.2014Background
- Trevor Jenkins owned and lived on property in Milton and failed to pay 2007–2009 property taxes; the Town sent multiple delinquency notices by first-class mail.
- On March 8, 2010 the Town’s attorney sent a registered-mail “Notice of Tax Sale” (with date, time, location); it was returned unclaimed on March 24, 2010.
- The Town posted, recorded, and published sale notice and proceeded with the auction on April 6, 2010; Hogabooms purchased the property.
- The day after the sale the Town mailed Jenkins a regular-mail notice informing him of the sale and redemption rights; Jenkins did not redeem and the Town later conveyed title to purchasers.
- Jenkins sued to set aside the tax sale as void for lack of constitutionally adequate notice; the trial court granted relief under Flowers. Purchasers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does due process require additional steps after mailed registered notice is returned unclaimed before conducting a tax sale? | Jenkins: Yes — Flowers requires added reasonable steps before sale once notice is returned. | Purchasers/Town: No — statutory steps and publications suffice; Flowers not applicable. | Yes — once registered notice is returned unclaimed, the Town must take additional reasonable steps before the sale. |
| Is post-sale but pre-redemption notice sufficient to satisfy due process? | Jenkins: No — sale itself changes taxpayer’s position (increases the base for 1% interest) so notice must precede sale. | Purchasers: Yes — deprivation (transfer of title) occurs only at redemption’s end, so post-sale notice during redemption suffices. | No — tax sale changes the interest (increases base for interest), so adequate notice must be given before the sale. |
| Do prior delinquency notices and attempted-delivery tags make Flowers inapplicable? | Jenkins: No — prior notices did not specify that a sale was scheduled; attempted-delivery tags did not notify of sale details or rights. | Purchasers: Yes — multiple prior notices and delivery attempts put Jenkins on inquiry notice. | No — prior first-class notices and delivery attempts did not meaningfully distinguish this case from Flowers; Flowers applies. |
| What additional steps are reasonably required after return of notice? | Jenkins: Steps like resending by regular mail, posting on door, or service are reasonable. | Purchasers: (argued burden should be minimal; relied on statutorily prescribed steps) | Court: Reasonable steps (e.g., resend regular mail, post on door, address to "occupant", sheriff service) were required; burden was slight here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (when mailed notice is returned unclaimed, government must take additional reasonable steps if practicable)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process is flexible; balancing test for procedural protections)
- Ran-Mar, Inc. v. Town of Berlin, 181 Vt. 26 (2006) (Vt. decision that title does not vest in purchaser until redemption period ends; discussed here but distinguished on notice grounds)