|
Civ
Pro
Process / Service (how it may vary)
By Chris Sedition
Title: Mennonite Board of
Missions v. Adams 462 U.S. 791 (1983)
Pf: MBM, had owned property
Df: Richard Adams, bought property
Pro His / Order: Adams filed for
quiet title and summary judgment. Pf claimed inadequate service.
Trial court upheld tax sale statute against the service
challenge. Court of appeals affirmed. Supreme court reverses. MBM
wins.
Facts: To secure an obligation,
Alfred Jean Moore executed a mortgage in favor of MBM. Moore had
purchased land from MBM. Moore was supposed to pay taxes on the
land. She didn’t. MBM was not aware of this. The County then
moved to sell the property for lack of tax payment. County
provided service per state law; posted in courthouse, published
an announcement, and sent Moore a certified letter. MBM was not
informed of the action by Moore or county auditor. The land was
sold to Adam (Df). Neither Moore nor MBM was at sale. Moore
continued to pay on the land to MBM, who didn’t know land
was sold.
Issue: Whether notice by publication
and posting provides a mortgage of real property with adequate
notice of a proceeding to sell the mortaged property for
nonpayment of taxes?
Holding: no, it is not.
Rule: 14th amendment / due
process
Reason:
a.
A mortagee has a protected property interest, this they are
entitled to notice that is reasonably calculated to apprise them
of pending tax sale(s). (see dissent)
b.
Unless a mortagee is not reasonably identifiable, constructive
notice alone does not satisfy the mandate of Mullane
c.
Constructive notice, in this case, is primarily designed to
attract prospective buyers, and are unlikely to reach those who
do not make special efforts to keep abreast of such notices
d.
Notice to property owner, who is not in privity with creditors
and has failed to keep property (i.e. not paying taxes to the The
Man), cannot be surmised to lead to actual notice.
e.
The Courts use of less reliable forms of notice is not sufficient
when an inexpensive and efficient means, such as mail, is
available.
Dissent: main jist of dissent: The
court has been against a standard by which process needs to
happen. Process needs to be tailored to a given situation and
circumstances. However, with the majority holding in this case,
the court has now set a low-bar standard for process; notice by
mail or other means to establish certain notice is a minimum
constitutional requirement for any legally protected
property interest. “This is a flat rejection of the ‘no
formula’ can adequately…evaluate process to a certain
class” –O’Connor. She goes on to say that policy
considerations of the state override that of process. MBM shouldn’t
get off the hook do to process when it could have very easily
looked after its own interests.
|
