*1 NEBEKER, Before KERN and Asso- Judges, ciate Retired.
JUDGMENT PER CURIAM.
Both were owners of real property in the District of *2 40
properties were deeded the District to found that the District (according to parent subsequent custom, Mr. and Mrs. Scheve to the although administrative not failure statutorily to redeem these had sent required) erties incurring arrearages. after At Mr. registered Dodson certified or mail trial, appellants sought notifying to set aside these redemption him that his period deeds from the District to the and was expire. Receipt Scheves soon to of that letter to respective property. acknowledged by clear title to their Brent, one Maureen employee Their actions were on the claim an based that in building where Dodson provisions the notice of D.C.Code Although worked. he customarily had his §§ 47-1001a, by her, 47-1001 and were not mail delivered Mr. Dodson denied notify they calculated to them that receipt were actual of that letter. The fact danger losing properties, title to their that under these circumstances Dodson Mr. and, accordingly, conveyance from claims prove no actual notice does not that the District to the constituted a Scheves efforts notify of the District to taking process. without In were both cases insufficient. As the Court stated in appellants conceded that the District had Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust complied statutory with 306, 314, the above 339 U.S. requirements.1 On the records before us 94 L.Ed. 865 notice satisfies due not, not,2 we need requirements therefore should ad “reasonably is 3 dress this constitutional issue since we af under all the to apprise firm the trial that in each interested effectively case in fact action and opportu- nity pending objections.” af-We property. firm the holding trial court’s that the Dis- trict’s notify efforts to Mr. Dodson were case, In the court found Dodson’s here so calculated. Nelson v. New Cf. attorney, that had been de York, 1 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 77 linquent years 14 times recent in the (1956). 171 payment of his real but that estate case, he always managed (except on in Hawkins’ conced- ed receipt stant his tax bill in time occasion) of a letter her that her to avoid The the loss of his to redeem was about to claimed, however, court that the District did mail She also found that the time she delinquency an received (March to him final notice of this letter 1973) nouncing nonpayment already would District had that further deeded the sale, although (March 14, 1973). re result in Dodson denied The letter 1, 1972, dated ceiving that letter. The court further December and a witness 586, urges Texas, she entitled Bush v. 1. Mrs. by registered (1963) ; personal 9 L.Ed.2a or service S.Ct. Powell v. service Washington Metropolitan pursuant Area Transit mail to D.C.Code U.S.App.D.C. occupant family Comm’n, 466 F.2d of a dwell since she was the (1972). clearly however, ing. provides, 47-905 Section required tax service is validity establishing argument payer his It is an of dubious files an affidavit family dwelling. all the circumstances attendant as an collec- status public treasury, tion of of such funds for the owner- Mrs. Hawkins no case, ship disposition realty, filing. the universal of dire Because of our consequences nonpayment for address her contention we need not legislative purpose comply the existence of a of re- substantial order demption. is behind § 47-903 notify taxpayers (by means addition opportunity provided Code) 47- file an affidavit. 905 to showing that Mr. is a record cause there according stated that by registered given notice Dodson was custom it “should have been mailed on De- for non- was sold 1, 1972,” particular mail cember this before concur normally payment I cannot stamp letter bore no date C., et in Hawkins printed Department mail result reached on such dissent. United and therefore Finance Revenue. See *3 Foundation, States v. Chemical at the time of Appellant was Hawkins 131 (1926). S.Ct. 71 L.Ed. owner-occupier complained of the the acts prior appears that dwelling-house. It apparent It is from the trial court’s taxes as- bill for real estate the rejected testimony ap ruling that it the of mailed to property was against sessed the that she did not receive paid by trust. and the holder prior the District’s letter of dwelling the early part of the property expiration her re at the of damaged so fire demption period. found, as The court also costing repairs quired leave while in the case of that the Dis were made. some $6500.00 trict had mailed her a final of de notice linquency the record in the amount of Real estate taxes $245.- support fairly finding can be read to of property for against assessed the 27 were expiring actual notice of the sale and the bill was and the tax Fiscal Year redemption period. connection, In this the of as owner appellant Hawkins mailed to judge trial also observed that on several failed to property. Appellant the record of previous occasions Mrs. Hawkins had suc property, described and her the taxes cessfully property redeemed her fall number, includ- square lot and leading into arrears on her the delinquent tax list ed in a lady proficient, state that “the is most publication of the delin- After assessor. view, my knowledge so far as the of sale together tax list procedure court, is concerned.” The there fore, found that knowledge “she had a of appellant’s debt and she had a of what unpaid tax- e., remedy the District’s sale reme [i. Because the and plus penalties es costs. dy] was.” time redeemed within property was not law, District of Columbia permitted by respective sup- We hold that the records 14, 1973, conveyed the on March port the trial that both by the entireties as tenants to the Scheves Mr. Dodson and Hawkins were suffi- the amount representing for $259.27 ciently convey- forthcoming and costs. unpaid respective property ance of their due to a delinquency. prop afforded appellant was Even if tax sale statutory protection before er Accordingly, day it is this 2nd of June to me that property, it seems duty to her a owed District of Columbia adjudged judg- Ordered and expiring period proper notice of give appellees, ments in favor of conveying the redemption before Columbia, be, Scheves and the District of Mul See deed to erty by tax are, hereby and affirmed. Trust Bank & Hanover Central lane v. (concur- Retired said: the Court where L.Ed. 865 part ring dissenting part): and elementary and fundamental An I constrained to concur the result am proceed- process in quirement ah, reached in be- Dodson v. shall have filed with the assessor of the finality is accorded is to be ing which an affidavit as to District of Columbia all ownership. The domicile and apprise interested form of prepared by the as- shall be of the action affidavit Columbia, sessor domicile, beginning of shall show the objections. [Citations ownership began, the street time when omitted.] number, square the number District of compare Miles v. also and lot, trusts, any, against and all (D.C.Cir. 510 F.2d [Emphasis added.] 1975). general knowledge It is a matter of course, is, record There has formulated Columbia District did address *4 procedures for collection elaborate period within her that the has delinquent taxes and permitted to redeem which she was tax set forth and back of on the face However, property was about to information, bills varied tax that the letter was not insists statutory obligation to do was no there days after the ceived until more than 15 has enough, no notice Significantly so. undisputed expired, and it is District, print in fine given by been letter was envelope otherwise, owner-occupier of or postmark. the cir- enclosed had no Under on a upon an affidavit dwelling, filing indulge presump- cumstances I refuse to assessor, be would form tion that the letter was mailed. ever by regis- days’ thirty entitled to event, appears to have been tered mail before a no- practice District to send such delinquent D.C.Code by registered mail in the com- tice because al., Colum- 1-1504(d) (5). The District panion case of Dodson v. § given. by registered mail was that the law bia insists that it did all every person and it is true that quired, this, Congress has But aside from all of However, I presumed law. know owner-occupiers dwellings system perceive unfairness basic special subject of Columbia the frustrates, in ef- which on the one hand 47- concern. in D.C.Code § fect, Congress expressed will of the provided: isit and on the in D.C.Code occupied by family dwelling-house No who to those gives other aid and comfort therepf be sold for delin- the owner shall at permitted profit a thousandfold are real-estate taxes ignorant and expense poor, personal- . unless notice has been the less alert. ly upon sent served such owner or registered mail, him at such addressed to judgment Hawk- I would reverse the thirty days dwelling-house, than not less ins with direc- and remand date of and afford tions to set aside the deed 1973, 47-905, By Congress pro- redeem, vided further that: time, property by reasonable paying the delinquent taxes chapter
This apply- shall be deemed as costs, plus to such and owner as interest.