Manutsom v. Town of Hollis, 2026 N.H. 27

Background

The Trust owned the Hollis property, and the plaintiff told the Town she traveled abroad, gave an email address, and authorized the Copps to handle tax matters. 1
From 2016 to 2018, the Town sent multiple certified-mail tax notices to plaintiff-provided addresses; some were signed for, but many were returned undeliverable. 2
In March and April 2019, after certified notices of an impending 2016 tax lien and 2016 tax deed were returned undelivered, the Town deeded the property to itself. 3
The Town then sent post-deed regular-mail and later certified notices, and in 2022 Mark Copp signed for a certified notice before the repurchase period expired. 4
The plaintiff sued, alleging the Town's notice of the 2016 and 2018 tax liens and the 2016 tax deed violated due process, and the trial court granted summary judgment to the Town. 5
The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did post-deed notice satisfy due process for the 2016 tax deed? 7	Town had to take additional reasonable steps, including email, after mailed notices were returned.	Post-deed notices and plaintiff's actual knowledge satisfied Jones.	No; notice had to be adequate before the deed executed, so post-deed notice was insufficient. 8
Was notice of the 2016 tax lien constitutionally adequate? 9	Town should also have used email or other available methods.	Certified mail to the address on file was enough.	No; notice to only the California address was not reasonably calculated to apprise plaintiff. 10
Was notice of the 2018 tax lien constitutionally adequate? 11	Town was required to use email in addition to mail.	Mailing to the Manchester and Maine addresses was reasonably calculated to notify her.	Yes; the Town's mailed notices satisfied due process. 12

Key Cases Cited

Polonsky v. Town of Bedford, 171 N.H. 89 (N.H. 2018) (summary judgment review is de novo, viewing evidence favorably to each nonmoving party 13)
Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (when mailed tax-sale notice is returned unclaimed, government must take additional reasonable steps if practicable 14)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties 15)
Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (U.S. 2002) (reiterates the Mullane due-process notice standard 16)
George v. Al Hoyt & Sons, Inc., 162 N.H. 123 (N.H. 2011) (court may address an issue likely to arise on remand 17)
Hogaboom v. Jenkins, 93 A.3d 131 (Vt. 2014) (post-sale notice during redemption period was not a sufficient supplemental step 18)
Investment Corp. of Virginias v. Acquaviva, 302 S.W.3d 195 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (follow-up notice during redemption period did not satisfy Jones 19)
Morris v. LandNPulaski, LLC, 309 S.W.3d 212 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009) (post-sale notice was adequate where title had not yet transferred and deprivation had not yet occurred 20)
First N.H. Bank v. Town of Windham, 138 N.H. 319 (N.H. 1994) (tax lien and tax deed involve different levels of property deprivation 21)
White v. Lee, 124 N.H. 69 (N.H. 1983) (upheld New Hampshire tax sale notice scheme as providing notice before sale and deeding 22)
Polonsky v. Town of Bedford, 173 N.H. 226 (N.H. 2020) (assumed without deciding that property is taken when the tax collector executes a tax deed 23)