UNITED ASSET MANAGEMENT TRUST CO. v. Clark, 332 S.W.3d 159

Background

Property was transferred to United Asset Management Trust (the Trust) by Norma and Clinton Tracy in 1992, with a Grandview, MO PO box as the Trust’s address and no trustee/beneficiary details recorded with the county.
The Trust failed to pay taxes on the Cass County property in 2003–2004; delinquency notices went to the old Grandview PO box, later returned undeliverable with no forwarding address.
Cass County published three weekly notices of a tax sale; Clarks purchased the tax lien at auction on August 22, 2005 for $2,600.
After the sale, the Cass County tax collector issued a collector’s deed to the Clarks following their email/affidavit-style notices of intent to redeem, which were sent to the Trust’s last known address but were returned undeliverable.
The Trust, through its trustee, sued to set aside the tax deed and quiet title, arguing improper notice under §140.405 and due process concerns; the trial court entered judgment for the Clarks, quieting title in their favor, which the appellate court affirmed.
The Trust’s ownership and notice-defect issues centered on whether notice under §140.405 was adequate given the Trust’s off-shore structure, lack of updated address, and the postal service returns of notices.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §140.405 notice to lienholders/owners was constitutionally adequate	Trust contends notice was defective, failing to convey the redemption period and convey that redemption would be forever barred	Clarks and Collector argue notice informed of right to redeem; statute allows notice via available means	No due process violation; notice informed of right to redeem and was reasonably calculated to inform given circumstances
Whether the Clarks and tax collector had to take additional steps after notices were returned undeliverable	Jones v. Flowers and Schlereth require additional steps to notify when notices are undeliverable	Additional steps were impracticable; extensive searches were conducted; posting was impracticable	No due process violation; additional steps were impracticable under the circumstances; notice adequate under Mullane/West Covina framework

Key Cases Cited

Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interests)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1950) (fundamental requirement is opportunity to be heard; notice must be reasonably calculated to inform)
Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2006) (unclaimed mailed notices require additional reasonably practicable steps if feasible)
Schlereth v. Hardy, 280 S.W.3d 47 (Mo. banc, 2009) (certified mail notices require follow-up if unclaimed; due process depends on practicability)
Schwartz v. Dey, 665 S.W.2d 934 (Mo. banc, 1984) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties; collector may act with reasonable efforts)
Acquaviva, 302 S.W.3d 195 (Mo. App. E.D., 2009) (remand for factual development on practicable additional notice when undeliverable)
CedarBridge, LLC v. Eason, 293 S.W.3d 462 (Mo. App. E.D., 2009) (notice must inform of right to redeem in first/second offerings; context of 140.405 interpretation)
Hames v. Bellistri, 300 S.W.3d 235 (Mo. App. E.D., 2009) (notice defective when it stated 90 days for first/second offering; 90-day period applies to third offering)
Drake Development & Construction, LLC v. Jacob Holdings, Inc., 306 S.W.3d 171 (Mo. App. S.D., 2010) (confirms notice adequacy standards and third-offering nuances)
M & P Enters., Inc. v. Transamerica Fin. Servs., 944 S.W.2d 154 (Mo. Banc, 1997) (historical treatment of 140.405; lienholders’ notice rights post third sale)
West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1999) (limits on requiring individualized notice of remedies; general notice may suffice when public sources are available)