813 S.E.2d 761
W. Va.2018Background
- Petitioner Julian Archuleta owned a Class II, owner-occupied home; taxes for 2012 went unpaid after her mortgage escrow ended.
- Respondent US Liens purchased the tax lien at sheriff’s sale (Nov. 19, 2013) and sought a tax deed via the State Auditor in early 2015.
- Certified mail to Archuleta was returned unclaimed; Respondent claims it provided the property address to the State Auditor for required mailings.
- West Virginia law required the purchaser to prepare a list of those to be served and request the State Auditor to send notices under W. Va. Code § 11A-3-19 and § 11A-3-22; § 11A-3-22(d) mandates sending a first-class copy addressed to “Occupant” to the property for Class II parcels.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment to US Liens, finding substantial compliance and that Archuleta would not have received additional notice; Archuleta appealed.
- Supreme Court of Appeals reversed: purchaser failed to ensure the Statutory “Occupant” notice was mailed, a jurisdictional statutory requirement under § 11A-3-19, so the tax deed must be set aside and redemption process reopened.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (US Liens) | Defendant's Argument (Archuleta) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of a first-class mailing addressed to “Occupant” for Class II property is fatal | US Liens: Substantial compliance sufficient; State Auditor, not purchaser, failed to mail to “Occupant,” so purchaser should not be penalized | Archuleta: Statute requires “Occupant” notice; purchaser failed to include “Occupant” on list and thus failed statutorily | Court: Omission is fatal — purchaser lost benefits for failing to comply with § 11A-3-19/§ 11A-3-22(d) |
| Whether noncompliance with § 11A-3-19 is curable or jurisdictional | US Liens: errors by State Auditor should be excused; substantial compliance doctrine applies | Archuleta: Noncompliance is jurisdictional and not curable; strict compliance required to protect property rights | Court: Noncompliance with § 11A-3-19 is jurisdictional and not subject to curative measures |
| Who bears burden to prove statutory notice compliance in tax-deed suits | US Liens: Responsibility for mailing rested on State Auditor once address provided | Archuleta: Burden rests on tax purchaser to prove compliance and to provide required list including “Occupant” | Court: Burden is on purchaser to prove compliance; purchaser must instruct Auditor to mail to “Occupant” and failed to do so |
| Whether due process required additional steps (e.g., address to “Occupant”) given returned mail | US Liens: Even if mail returned, additional steps would not have achieved notice to Archuleta | Archuleta: Due process and statute (informed by Jones v. Flowers) require such follow-up measures like mail addressed to "Occupant" | Court: § 11A-3-22(d) makes the “Occupant” mailing mandatory for Class II property; omission violated statutory and due-process protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (U.S. 1983) (mail or other means ensuring actual notice is minimum due process before taking property)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (additional reasonable steps, e.g., addressing mail to “occupant,” may be required when certified mail is returned)
- Lilly v. Duke, 180 W. Va. 228 (W. Va. 1988) (adopts federal due-process notice standard for tax-sale notice)
- State ex rel. Morgan v. Miller, 177 W. Va. 97 (W. Va. 1986) (noncompliance with mandatory tax-sale statutory requirements constitutes jurisdictional defect)
- Rebuild America, Inc. v. Davis, 229 W. Va. 86 (W. Va. 2012) (burden on tax-deed grantee to prove statutory compliance and procedure for setting aside tax deed)