I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CA- 0 1 2 1 9 - S CT AAR CO OI

L AN D G AS COM

PAN Y, H

ARR ELL EN ER GY C OR P ORAT

ION, GL EN

N G. M ORTI M ER, I I I , ANNE M ORTI

M ER BAL LANT YNE; DORCH ES TER ROYALT Y; W H ELESS I NV ESTM EN T CO M

PAN Y; J

. T. TROT TER TRUS TEE OF THE J OSEPH S YDNEY W HELES S , J R. 1 9 74 TRUS T, J

. T. TROT TER , EXECUTOR OF THE ES TAT E OF ADA NANCE W HEL ES S , P AIGE HOL L OW

AY , S UC CES

S OR TRUS TEE OF THE PAIGE HO LL OW AY TROT TER GST

EXEM PT ION, COM

PAS SBANK, TRUS TEE OF THE BARBA RA T ROTT ER COL L I NSGS T EX EMPT ION T RU S T , FI EL DI NG L . CO CK

E, CA M I L L E C OC

KE P AT TON, AN

D T AMARA C

. J EN KI NS
v. EOG RES OURCES

, I NC. , W I LL I AM W ALLACE ALL RED, BARBER M I NERAL S

, I NC. , W I LEY F A I R C H I L D F A MI L Y T R U S T , J O H N M. FA I RC H I LD , M ICH AEL B . M O O RE AN

D LY N N S. J ONES I N THEI R CAP ACI TI ESASTRUS TEES OFTH E W I LEY F AI RCH I LD F AM I LY TRU ST; AN D F AI RC HI L D- W I NDHA M

EX P L ORAT ION CO M PAN Y, LLC D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 26/ 2008 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. J OE D ALE W ALK ER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: COVI NGTON COU NTY CHANCERY COURT

### Belhave n Produc ti on, LLC, and Li ttleRive r Dril ling, LLC, wer e the original 1 

### plaintiffs, but were voluntarilydismissed onJuly 1 , 20 09 , follo win g a settlement agreement. 2 AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : CA RE Y R . VAR NADO J EFF ERSON D. STEW AR T H O LM ES S. A D A M S BE RN AR D HE S S BO OT H, I V E. STEPH EN W I LLI A M S LI N D SA Y G RE EN W A TTS JO H N S A N F O R D M cD A V ID AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : C. GL E N B US H J OHN HART GEARY, J R. GLE NN G ATE S TAYLOR L I NDS E Y M c GE E T UR K J AM E S L . QUI NN W ATTS CA SP ER U ELTS CH EY J OSE P H AN THONY SHER M AN, J R. L A W R E N C E C A R Y G U N N , J R . NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - REA L PROPERTY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 29/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E G R A V E S, P . J. , L A M A R A N D K I T C H E N S, JJ. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . Bo th th e p l a i n t i f f s a n d th e d e f

e n d a n t s c l a i m o wn e r s h i p t o th e mi n e r a l r i g h t s o f t wo tr act s of l and si tuat ed i n C ovi ngt on C ounty. T he pl ai nt i f f s br oughts ui ti n the C ovi ngt on C ou nty Cha nc e r y Court , a l l e gi ng tha tthe de f e nd a nt s ’ i nt e r e s ti n the pr op e r ty was de r i ved f r om an i nval i d t ax s al e i n 1942. T he chanc el l orgr ant ed s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof the d efe n d an ts, fi n d ing that the tax sale w as v ali d , an d the p lai n ti ffs ap p ea led. F ind ing n o erro r, 1
w e aff i rm the g rantof sum m ary j ud gm ent i n favor of the d efendan t s.

### The c hanc er y cl er k is sue d Windham a

dee d cove ring Trac t 1 on May 1, 1944, and 2 

### a secon d d eed onM ay 12 , 1 94 4. B othdeed s listed d ifferent sale p rices. Ind epen dent Tru st Fund was al so i ss ued two dee ds with di ff er ent s al e pri ce s, onedate d April6, 1945, and one dat ed April7, 1945. 3 I. F a cts ¶ 2 . In 1 9 4 0 , the su rfa c e , a n d the m in e ra ls a t issu e , w e re o w n e d b y th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i. O n N ovember2, 1940, the s t at e gr ant ed R . J . G r aves a f or f ei t ed t ax l and pat entt o T r act1 and g ra n ted J.D . N o b les a fo rfe ited tax la n d p a ten t to T ra c t 2 . G ra v e s a n d N o b les e a c h so ld a ll o f th eir m inera l i n terests i n their resp ec ti v e tracts. O n O ctob er 3 0 , 1 9 4 0 , d ay s b efo re r e c e i vi ng hi s t a x l a nd pa t e nt , G r a ve s c on ve ye d a on e - ha l f mi ne r a l i nt e r e s ti n Tr a c t1 t o J . S. W hel es s , Jr . G r aves conveyed the ot herone- hal f m i ner al i nt er es ti n T r act1 t o A ar on C ohen on N ovember2, 1940. L i kew i s e, on O ct ober29, 1940, N obl es conveye d a one- hal f m i ner al i n t e r e s ti n T r a c t2 t o H. Gu i n L e wi s , a n d a o n e - h a l f mi n e r a l i n t e r e s ti n T r a c t2 t o J i m H . Pugh. A l l f

ourm i ner al deeds w er e r ecor ded w i th t he C ovi ngt on C ounty C hance ry C l erk on orbef or e D ece m ber28, 1940. T hes e i nt er es t s w er e tr ans f err ed numer ous t i m es t o var i ous p a rties th ro u g h o u t th e y e a rs, a n d a ll o f th e se in stru m e n ts o f c o n v e y a n c e w e re re c o rd e d w ith the C ovi ngt on C ount y C hance r y C l erk. T he pl ai nti ff s tr ace thei rt i t l e bac k t o C ohen, W heles s, P ug h, and L ew i s. ¶3 . H o w ev er, o n A p ri l 6 , 1 9 4 2 , b o th tr ac ts o f land , inclu d ing the m inera l interests, w ere s ol d f orunpai d 1941 ad val or em t axes , cr eat i ng a se cond cha i n of t i t l e. M r s . R . L . W i ndham acqui r ed T r act1, and I ndepende ntT rus tFund acqui r ed Tra ct2. Fol l ow i ng the 1942 s al e, t he or i gi nal ow ners had tw o year s t o r ecl ai m thei rpr operty and pay the pas t - due t axes , but
n eith er tract w as re d ee m ed . M iss. C o d e § 9 9 4 8 (19 4 2 ). T h e m inera l i n terests w ere 2

### Nota bly, se veralof thedefe ndant s wer e bef orethis Court

in 2001 in a c as e involving 3 

### thesamemineralint er es ts at is sue . In Allred

v. Fa irchild, 785 So. 2d 106 4 (M iss. 2001), thi s Cour t he ld t hat Wal la ceAllre d was enti tl ed to theimpos ition of a c onstruc tive trus t on mineralint er es ts purc has ed by Wi le y Fairc hil d. Theplaintif fs werenot partie s t o that a ction, and owne rs hip wa s not

dis pute d. 4 eventual l y s ever ed f

r om the s ur f

ace r i ght s ; the def

endant s tr ace thei row ner s hi p i n t he
m i ner al i nt er es t s back t o W i ndham and I ndepende ntT rus tFund. 3 ¶4. O n M ay 1 , 20 07 , the plai nti ff s fi l ed thi s sui tseeki ng t o co nfi rm and qu i ett i t l e and al so s eeki ng a dec l ara t ory j udgm entt hatthey w er e the r i ght f ul ow ner s . T he compl ai ntal l eged thatone of

the def endant s , EO G Resour ces , I nc. , ha d dr i l l ed a gas w el l on the pr operty and
w as i n the process o f dri l l i ng a second w el l . T he p l ai nti ff s al so soug ht dam ages for tres pass, es t abl i s hm entof

a cons truct i ve t rus tforany proc eeds fr om t he pr operty, an acc ount i ng, and i nj unct i ve r el i ef

t o pr eventthe def

e nd a nt s f r om di s tr i but i ng any pr ocee ds ort aki ng any ac t i on to in te rf e re w ith th e ira lle g e d in te re s t in th e p ro p e rt y . ¶5. T he pl ai nt i f

f s di s put e t he val i di ty of the 1941 ass es s m entof t axes and the s ubs equent 1 9 4 2 tax sa le. T h e d e fe n d a n ts a rg u e th a t th e tax a ss e s s m e n t an d th e sa le w e re m a d e in acc or dance w i th l aw , and ther ef or e, they ar e the l aw f

ul ow ner s . T he def

endant s al s o as s er t ed i n the l ow ercourtthatthe p l ai nti f f s ’ caus es of

act i on w er e barr ed by the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , or , i n the al t ernat i ve, by adver s e pos s es s i on; butt he defend ant s m oved f or s um m ary j udgm entr el ying sol el y on the val i di ty of thei rt i t l e. Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng, t he chan cel l or i ssued a t en-pag e j ud gm ent i n favor of the d efendan t s.

### 5 I I . C onst i t ut i onal I s s ues ¶6. B efor e addressi ng the un derl y ing m erit s, w e m u st f ir st co n side r the defend ants ’ a rg u m e n ts th a t an y a n d a ll co n stitu tio n a l issu e s ra ise d b y th e p lain tiffs a re p ro c e d u ra lly barr ed bec aus e thes e i s s ues w er e notadequa t el y r ai s ed atthe tr i al l evel and bec aus e the att o rne y g en era l w as n o t no ti fi ed p u rsua n t t o M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 2 4 (d)(2 ). ¶7 . Fi r s t , t he pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hatbec a us e the 19 41 a s s e s s mentw a s no tno t i c e d and equal i zed by t he C ovi ngt on C ount y B oar d of Super vi s or s , i tw as i n vi ol at i on of A r t i cl e 4, S ec ti o n 1 1 2 o f th e M issi ss ip p i C o n sti tuti o n . T h e d efe n d an ts assert th at th e p lai n ti ffs are att em p ti n g t o ha v e the en ti re st atuto ry sc h em e d ec lared u n co n sti tuti o n al, an d there fore , w ere req u ir ed to n o ti fy the att o rne y g en era l un d er M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 2 4 (d)(2 ). R ule 24(d)( 2) provi des, (d ) In te r v e n tio n b y th e S ta te . In a ny act i on . . . ( 2) f ordecl ar at ory r el i ef br oughtpur s uantt o R ul e 57 i n w hi ch a de cl ar at i on oradj udi cat i on of the uncons t i tut i onal i ty of

any s t atut e of

t he St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi i s among t he r el i ef req u ested , the p arty a sserti n g the u n co n sti tuti o n ali ty of th e statute sha ll n o ti fy the A tt o rne y G en era l of th e S tat e o f M issi ssipp i w ith in su ch ti m e a s to a fford hi m an opportuni ty t o i nt ervene a nd ar gue the ques t i on of cons t i tut i onal i ty. T h e p lain tiffs c o u n ter th a t th e y a re n o t se e k in g to h a v e a n y sta tu te d e c lar e d u n c o n stitu tio n a l, ra th e r, t h e y a re c la im in g t h a t th e s ta tu te s w e re a p p lie d in a n u n c o n s titu tio n a l m a n n e r. W e agr ee. Becaus e the pl ai nt i f f s a r e nots eeki ng t o i nval i dat e a s t atut e, R ul e 24( d) ( 2) not i f i cat i on does notappl y. ¶8. Second, the pl ai nt i f f s ar gue thatthe m i ner al ow ner s di d notr ece i ve ade quat e not i ce o f th e tax sa le s u ffic ien t to c o m p ly w ith th e d u e p ro c e ss re q u ire m e n ts o f th e fe d e ra l an d sta te cons t i tut i ons . T he def

endant s as s ertthatthe pl ai nt i f f s w er e t oo l at e i n r ai s i ng thi s i s s ue and

### 6

shou l d b e prohibi t ed fr om argui ng i ton app eal . T his i ssue w as never rai sed i n the pl ai nti ff s’
r es pons e t o the mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm entand w as neverar gued atthe M ay 21, 2008, h e a rin g . H o w e v e r, at th e c lo se o f th e h e a rin g o n M a y 2 1 , 2 0 0 8 , the c h a n c e llo r re se rv e d h is
rul i ng and gr ant ed the pl ai nt i f f s an addi t i onal thi r ty days t o s ear ch f ordocument s atthe M i s s i s s i ppi St at e Tax C om m i s s i on. O n J une 16, 2008, one of the pl ai nt i f

f s ’ att orneys s ent a l e t t e rt o th e j u d g e r a i s i n g th e d u e p r o c e s s i s s u e a n d q u o t i n g th e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C o u rt c a s e , Me n n o n ite B o a r d o f Mis s i o n s v. A da ms , 4 6 2 U. S. 7 9 1 , 1 0 3 S. Ct . 2 7 0 6 , 7 7 L. E d. 2d 180 ( 1983) . W hen the courtr econve ned on J une 26, 2008, the cha ncel l oral l ow ed the pl ai nt i f f s t o m ake thei rdue pr oces s ar gum ent . The c hance l l orobs erved thathe had r ead the Me n n o n ite d e c i s i on a nd tha ti td i d no tc ha ng e h i s o pi ni on . H e the n i ns truc t ed t he d efe n d an ts’ att o rne y s to a d d lang u ag e to that e ffect to the p rep are d o rde r g ran ti n g su m m ary jud g m en t. N o n e o f th e d efe n d an ts objected to this ad d it ion . B ec au se th e low er c o u rt addr es s ed the due pr oces s i s s ue r el at i ng t o t he 1942 t ax sa l e, thi s C our ti s notpr ohi bi t ed f r om c o n sid e rin g th e iss u e o n a p p e a l. I I I . 19 41 Suppl e m e nt alA s s e s s m e nt ¶ 9 . A rticle 4 , S e c tio n 1 1 2 o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n p ro v id e s th a t “ [t] a x a tio n sh a ll be uni f or m thr oughoutt he St at e. ” T o ensur e uni f or m i ty, t he l egi s l atur e i m pos ed upon boar ds of s upervi s ors the duty t o equal i ze t ax as s es s m ent s . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 27- 35- 131 ( R ev. 2 0 0 6 ). T h e co d e req u ir ed th e b o ard s of su p erv isors t o pro v ide n o ti ce by pu b li ca tio n to t axp ayers of the ri gh tt o inspectand exam i ne the r oll s on ce they had been equali zed. M i ss. C ode § 3162 ( 1930) . T he boar d w as r equi red t o hear t axpaye robj ect i ons , i f any, t o t he

### At th at tim e, th e co unty o ffices of sh eriff andtax co llector w ere comb inedin 4 

### Mississip pi. 7 as s es s m ent s on the f

i r s tM onday of

A ugus tand make any nec es s ary corr ect i ons . M i s s . C ode § 3 1 6 5 (19 3 0 ). ¶10. A t the t i m e of the 1941 as s es s m ent , r eal pr operty r ol l s w er e exami ned and equa l i zed every t w o year s , and t he nextequal i zat i on w as nott o occurunt i l 1942. M i s s . C ode §§ 3144, 3164 ( 1930) . T hus , no e qual i zat i on of the county’ s l and as s es s m entr ol l w as author i zed or
r equi r ed f

or1941; thi s w as a ccompl i s hed w hen the r ol l w as dul y equal i zed f orthe 1940- 1941 bi enni al per i od. T he 1940 as s es s m entdi d notas s i gn a val ue t o the l and ati s s ue bec aus e at the t i m e i tw as ow ned by the st at e. M i s s . C ode § 3148 ( 1930) . H ow ever , af t erthe l and beca m e pr i vat el y ow ned i n N ovember1940, the t ax col l ect orw as re qui r ed t o as s es s the l and and add i tt o the l and r ol l . M i s s . C ode § 3230 ( 1930) . T r act s 1 and 2 w er e adde d t o the l and asses sm ent r oll , l i st i ng G raves and N ob l es as the ow ners. T here i s no dat e on these ent ri es, buta handw r i t t en not e atthe t op of the page s t at es t hat“t he f ol l ow i ng as s es s m enti s added to R o ll b y S .O . H e rr in g to n S h e ri ff & T C to b e p a y e d o n fo r t a x y e a r 1 9 4 1 a n d 4 2 .” 4 ¶11. T he def

endant s as s ert that the l and w as t axed at a val ue cons i s t ent w i th the equa l i zed and dul y appr oved 1940- 1941 as s es s m ent . T he s uppl ement al l and as s es s m entr ol l s how s t he asse ssed v alue at $4 . 0 0 p er a cre , the s am e v alue g ive n a ll o th er lan d s in the W il li am sb u rg s chool di s tr i ct , w her e the s ubj ectl ands ar e s i tuat ed. ¶12. T he pl ai nt i f

f s do no targue thatthe assess ed value w as exces s i ve orthati t w as i ncompat i bl e w i th the 1940- 1941 as s es s m ent. I ns t ead, they cont end thatthe 1941 su p p lem en tal asse ssm en t w as in v ali d m ere ly b ec au se th e ro ll w as n o t equ ali ze d that y ea r.

### 8

T hey as s ertthat , w i thoutan equa l i zat i on of the r ol l fol l ow i ng the 1941 s uppl ement al as s es s m ent , the pr ocedur e w as vi ol at i ve of the cons t i tut i onal r equi r ementof “ un i for m and e q u a l” ta x a tio n . ¶13. H ow ever , the pl ai nt i f f s ci t e no author i ty f

or the pr opos i t i on that the l and as s es s m ent ro ll h a d to b e e q u a lize d e v e ry y e a r in o rd e r to e n su re u n ifo rm a n d e q u a l tax a tio n . T h e y c ite thr ee c as es i n w hich t his C our thel d thatl ack of not i ce t o the publ i c of the bi enni al l and a ss e ss m e n t re n d e rs th e a ss e ss m e n t in v a lid : W hite v. Me r c hant

s & Plante rs Bank , 90 So. 2d 1 1 (M iss . 1 9 5 6 ); Matthi eu v. Cr os by Lu m ber& M f g. Co. , 4 9 S o . 2 d 8 9 4 (M iss. 1 9 5 1 ); B er r yhil l v. Johnston , 3 9 S o. 2d 53 0 (M i ss. 19 49 ). T hese cases do n ot s up po rtthe p l ai nti ff s’ ar gum ent , as ther e i s no di s put e thatthe boar d of s upervi s or s gave pr opernot i ce of the 1940- 1941 l and as s es s m ent , the as s es s m entupon w hi ch the 1941 t axes w er e bas ed. ¶14. T he pl ai nt i f

f s al s o ci t e A da m s v . T

o n e lla , 7 0 M iss . 7 0 1 , 1 4 S o . 1 7 (1 8 9 3 ), w h e re th is C ou rtstruck do w n a st atute that perm i t t ed st at e r even ue ag ents t o au ditl ocal t ax assessor s’ bo ok s, i den t i fy und erval ued property, and the n co l l ectadd i t i on al t axes on such p ropert i es. H ow ever , the pr obl em i n A da ms w as the unl i m i t ed and unchecked pow erof the r evenue agent s , w ho w er e perm i t t ed t o “go behi nd as s es s m entr ol l s w hi ch had been f i nal l y appr oved by the boar d of

s upervi s or s . ” State v. W heatley , 1 13 M i s s . 555, 74 So. 427, 432 ( 1917) ( ci t i ng A da ms , 14 So. 17) . I n the pr es entc as e, a dul y author i zed l ocal county of f i ci al ( the t ax col l ect or ) per f

or m ed hi s duty i n acc or dance w i th the l aw and as s es s ed the l ands ata val ue consi s t entw i th t he 1940- 1941 as s es s m entthathad bee n appr oved by the boar d of s upervi s or s . H i s pow erw as notunchec ked and he di d not“ go be hi nd” the pr oper l y appr oved a ss e ss m e n t ro ll.B egi nni ng i n 1947, nonpr oduci ng m i ner al i nt er es t s thatw er e ow ned s epar at el y f r om 5 the l a nd s ur f

a c e b e c a me e xe mptf

r om a d va l or e m t a xe s . M i s s . Code Ann. § 2 7- 31- 73 t o § 2 7 -31 -87 . (R e v . 20 0 6 ). H o w ev er, prior t o 1 9 4 7 , sep ara tel y o w n ed m inera l i n terests w ere t axed i n the s ame m anneras s ur f ace i nt er es t s . M i s s . Code § 3146 ( 1930) ; M i s s . C ode § 9770 (1 9 4 2 ). 

### 9 ¶15. T he pl ai nt i f

f s al s o as s ert that , beca us e the l and w as as s es s ed at no val ue i n 1940, t he land w as e x em p t f

rom taxa ti o n for a tw o -ye ar p eriod . T o su p p o rtthis argu m en t, the p lai n ti ffs ci t e L ong B el

l C o. v. McLendon , 127 M i s s . 636, 90 So. 356 ( 1922) . H ow ever , i n L o n gB e ll , th is C o u rt stru c k d o w n a “ b a c k a ss e ss m e n t” b e c a u se th e re h a d b e e n n o c h a n g e in o w n e rsh ip f r om t he st at e t o an i ndi vi dual . In the pr es entcas e, the l ands beca m e pr i vat el y ow ned, and the law w as c lear tha t any stat e-o w n ed land s b e c a m e ta x a b le th e n ex t yea r after th ey w ere s o ld to in d iv id u a ls . M is s . C o d e § § 3 1 2 1 , 3 1 4 5 (1 9 3 0 ). ¶16. I tw as the m i ner al ow ner s ’ dut y t o ensur e t hatt hei ri nt er es t s w er e s epar at el y as s es s ed. M iss . C o d e § 3 1 4 6 (1 9 3 0 ); Cle m e nt v. Burns , 373 So. 2d 790, 794 ( M i s s . 1979) ( ci t i ng S tern v. P arker , 2 0 0 M iss . 2 7 , 2 5 S o . 2 d 7 8 7 (1 9 4 6 )). If th e o w n e r o f se v e re d m in e ra l rig h ts d id 5 notful f i l l thi s du ty, a nd the s ur f a c e ownerf

a i l e d t o p a y the a s s e s s e d t a xe s , the s t a t e w as p e rm itte d to s e ll th e la n d , in c lu d in g th e s e v e re d m in e ra l r ig h ts , a t a ta x s a le . Cle m e nt , 373 So. 2d at79 4. I n thi s c a s e , n othi ng i n the r e c or d i nd i c a t e s tha tCohe n, W he l e s s , Pu gh , or L ew i s had his int ere s ts epar at el y as s es s ed. T hus , w hen G r aves and N obl es f ai l ed t o pay t axes , the s t at e l aw f

ul l y s ol d the ent i r e es t at e, i ncl udi ng the mi nera l i nt er es t s , t o W i ndham a n d In d e p e n d e n t T ru s t F u n d . IV . 1 9 4 2 T a x S a leA lth o u g h th e re is n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd , the p a rtie s d o n o t d isp u te th a t th e sa le 6 w a s p ro p e rl y a d v e rt is e d . T h e d e fe n d a n ts a ss e rt th a t G ra v e s a n d N o b les w e re g iv e n n o tice v ia r e g iste re d m a il. 7 T he pl ai nt i f

f s c orr e c t l y p oi ntou ttha ti tw a s the l i e no r s a nd no tthe owner s w ho r e c e i ved n o tice v ia r e g iste re d m a il. 

### 10 ¶17. T he pl ai nt i f

f s al s o ar gue thatthe 1942 t ax s al e w as i nval i d beca us e the county di d not pr ovi de not i ce t o the mi ner al ow ner s , ei therby m ai l orby per s onal ser vi ce, i n vi ol at i on of fe d e ra l a n d s ta te d u e p ro c e s s r e q u ir e m e n ts . U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . X IV ; M is s . C o n s t. a rt . 3 , § 14. T he s t atut es i n e f

f ecta tthe t i m e r equi r ed thatthe t ax col l ect oradvert i s e al l l ands t o be so ld fo r de li n q u en t taxe s i n a co u n ty ne w sp ap er for th ree w ee k s. M iss. C o d e § 9 9 2 1 (19 4 2 ). 6 B ef or e the tw o- yearr edempt i on per i od expi r ed, the s t atut es r equi r ed t hat the ow ner s be per s onal l y s erved w i th not i ce, butonl y i f t hey r es i ded w i thi n t he st at e. M i s s . C ode §§ 9941- 42 ( 1942) . O ut - of

- s t at e r es i dent s w er e t o r ece i ve not i ce by mai l , butonl y i f thei raddr es s es w ere k n o w n o r co u ld “b e a sce rt aine d after dili g en t i n q u iry . ” M iss. C o d e § 9 9 4 2 (19 4 2 ). B eca us e G r aves and N obl es w er e r es i dent s of M i s s i s s i ppi , the l aw r equi red t hatthey be s erved per s onal l y bef

or e the expi r at i on of

the r edempt i on per i od, butthe county w as not r equi r ed t o not i f

y the ow ner s of

the s ever ed mi ner al i nt er es t s . M i s s . C ode §§ 9941- 42 (1 9 4 2 ). ¶18. T her e i s no evi dence i n the record thatthe t ax s al e w as advert i s ed as r equi r ed by s t a tu t e . I n a d d i t i o n , wh i l e t h e l a n d r o l l i n d i c a t e s th a tGr a v e s a n d No b l e s w e r e g i v e n s o me fo rm o f n o tice b e fo re th e e x p ira tio n o f th e re d e m p tio n p e rio d o n Ja n u a ry 1 5 , 1 9 4 4 , the ro ll does nots peci f

y thatG r aves and N obl es w er e per s onall y ser ved. H ow ever , gi ven the 7 pr es um pt i on thatpubl i c of f i ci al s per f

or m thei rl aw f

ul dut i es , i n abse nce of

evi dence t o t he

### 11

contr ary, w e may pr es um e tha tthe t ax s al e w as pr oper l y advert i s ed and thatG r aves and N o b le s w e re g iv e n p e rs o n a l s e rv ic e p ri o r t o th e e x p ir a tio n o f th e r e d e m p tio n p e ri o d . Fr az ier v. State B

y and T hrough P itt

m an , 5 0 4 S o . 2 d 6 7 5 , 7 1 2 (M is s . 1 9 8 7 ). ¶19. T he plai nti ff

s argue t hat, ev en i f t he cou nty f ol l ow ed s t atut ory requi rem ents , publ i cat i on of

the s al e and not i ce t o the s ur f ace ow ner s w as i ns uf

f i ci entt o s at i s f

y the due p ro c e ss rig h ts o f th e m in e ra l o w n e rs. T o su p p o rt th e ir a rg u m e n t, th e p lain tiffs p o in t to evi dence thattw o of

the f ourow ner s of

the s ever ed mi ner al i nt er es t s pai d t axes f r om 1942 onw ar d. A f

t erthe s t atut es w er e amended i n 1946 t o al l ow an exe m pt i on f orm i ner al i nter est s, bo th ind ividuals pu rchased t he requ i red doc um entary st am ps and aff i xed t ho se s t amps t o thei rm i ner al deeds . M i s s . Code A nn. § 27- 31- 71 t o § 27- 31- 87 ( R ev. 2006) . T he p lain tif fs a ss e rt th a t itw a s th e re fo re re a so n a b le f o r th e c o u n ty to n o tify th e se in d iv id u a ls aboutthe t ax s al e and the nee d t o r edee m thei rpr operty. ¶ 2 0 . Th e de f

e n d a n t s c o u n t e rth a tth e i rp r e d e c e s s o r s i n t i t l e a l s o p a i d t a x e s o n th e s a me m i ner al i nt er es t s . T hey not e that , al though t he pl ai nt i f f s ’ pre dece s s or s i n t i t l e w er e i dent i f i ed b y n a m e in m in e ra l d e e d s, th e re w a s n o in d ica tio n o f th e ir ad d re ss e s, an d the y n e g lec ted to h a v e th e irm in e ra ls s e p a ra te ly a s s e s s e d in 1 9 4 1 . ¶2 1 . A lth o u g h th e p lai n ti ffs cit e b o th th e fed era l an d th e state c o n stitu tio n s, th e y re ly pr i m ar i l y on t w o U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tde ci s i ons w hi ch pos t dat e the 1942 t ax s al e, Mul lane v. Cent

r al H ano v e rBank & T

r ust C om pa ny , 3 3 9 U. S. 3 0 6 , 7 0 S. Ct . 6 5 0 , 9 4 L. E d. 865 ( 1950) , and Me n n o n ite B o a r d o f Mis s i o n s v. A da ms , 4 62 U . S. 791 ( 1983) . T he def endant s ar gue t hatt hes e deci s i ons shoul d notbe appl i ed r etr oact i vel y, and ci t e ca s es f r om W es tV i r gi ni a and N ew Y or k’ s s upr eme cour t s w hi ch r ef us ed t o appl y the Me n n o n ite

### Onqu e s t i on s i nv olvingthea pp l i c at i onof

s t at e l aw, thi s Co ur

t i s f r e e t o a pp ly i t s own 8 

### retroactiv ity d octrin e. Harper , 509 U. S. at 100. 12 d e c is io n re tr o a c tiv e ly . G eibel v. Clark , 4 0 8 S .E .2 d 8 4 (W . V a . 1 9 9 1 ); Mc Ca n n v. S c a d u to , 519 N . E . 2d 309, 404 ( N . Y . 1987) . T hese dec i s i ons r el i ed i n parton the ef f ects uch
r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on m i ghthave on e xi s t i ng pr operty r i ght s . H ow ever , t he U ni t ed St at es S up rem e C ou rthas m ade clearsi nce these tw o d eci si on s that, “[ w ] hen thi s C ou rtapp l i es a rul e of fe der al l aw t o t he par t i es bef or e i t , thatrul e i s the contr ol l i ng i nt erpr et at i on of f eder al law a n d m u st b e g iv e n fu ll re tro a c tiv e eff e c t i n all ca se s still o p e n o n d ire c t re v iew a n d a s to al l event s , regardl ess of w hethers uch eve nt s pr edat e orpos t dat e ourannounce m entof t he
rul e. ” H ar perv. V ir gini a D ep’t

. of T axati on , 509 U . S. 86, 97, 113 S. C t . 2510, 125 L . E d. 2d 74 ( 1993) . I n both the Mullane and Me n n o n ite d e c isio n s, th e C o u rt a p p lied th e n e w ru le t o the part i es bef

or e i t . T hus , w e ar e bound t o appl y thes e dec i s i ons t o t oday’ s cas e. 8 ¶ 2 2 . Mullane and Me n n o n ite di s c us s the mann e ra nd e xt e ntof no t i c e tha ti s r equi r ed bef or e a s t at e may t ake a n act i on w hi ch w i l l af f ecta prot ect ed i nt er es ti n l i f e, l i berty, or pr operty. T he ca s es hol d thatthe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endmentr equi r es “not i ce r eas onabl y cal cul at ed, underall ci r cumst ance s , t o appr i s e i nt er es t ed part i es of t he p e n d e n c y o f t h e a c ti o n a n d a ff o rd th e m a n o p p o rt u n ity to p re s e n t th e iro b je c tio n s .” Me n n o n ite , 462 U . S. a t795 (quo t i ng Mul lane , 339 U . S. at314) . R egar di ng not i ce by publ i cat i on, the C our tobs erved that“[ c] hance al one br i ngs t o the att ent i on o f even a l ocal re sid e n t an a d v e rtise m e n t in a sm a ll ty p e in se rte d in th e b a c k p a g e s o f a n e w sp a p e r, an d if he makes hi s hom e out s i de the ar ea of the new s paper ’ s nor m al ci r cul at i on the odds thatthe i nf or m at i on w i l l neverr eac h hi m ar e l ar ge i ndeed. ” Id . ( quot i ng Mul lane , 3 3 9 U . S . at 31 5 ).

### 13

T he C our tal s o not ed that“[ b] eca us e they ar e des i gned pr i m ar i l y t o attr actpr ospect i ve pur chas er s t o the t ax sa l e, publ i cat i on and post i ng ar e unl i kel y t o r eac h thos e w ho, al though they have an i nt er es ti n the pr operty, do notm ake s peci al ef f or t s t o keep a br eas tof

s uch not i ces . ” Id . (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). ¶2 3 . H o w ev er, th e S u p rem e C o u rtdid n o t h o ld th at actua l n o ti ce w as n ec essa ry in e v ery i ns t ance . “W e do nots ugges t , how ever , thata governm ent al body i s r equi r ed t o under t ake e x tra o rd in a ry e ffo rts to d isc o v e r th e id e n tity a n d w h e re a b o u ts o f a m o rtg a g e e w h o se id e n tity i s noti n the publ i c r ecor d. ” Id . , 462 U . S. at798 n. 4. T he C our thad r ecogni zed that publ i cat i on m ay s uf

f i ce t o not i f

y thos e i ndi vi dual s “ w hos e i dent i ty orw her eabout s [ can] not w i t h due di l i gence be as cert ai ned. ” Mul lane , 33 9 U. S. a t65 9. “ [ W ] he the ra pa r t i c ul ar metho d of

n ot i c e i s r e a s on a bl e d e pe nd s on the p a r t i c ul a rc i r c ums t a nc es . ” Tu lsa P ro f’l Col lecti on Serv s . , I

nc. v. P ope , 485 U . S. 478, 484, 108 S. C t . 1340, 1344, 99 L . E d. 2d 565 (19 8 8 ). ¶24. W hen conf

r ont ed w i th a s i tuat i on s i m i l ar t o the one bef or e us i n the pr es ent cas e, t he F if th C ir cu itC o u rto f A p p ea ls he ld tha t “a se arc h o f th e c o n v e y a n c e re co rds to iden ti fy part i es w i th m i ner al i nt er es t s w oul d be undul y bur dens om e and i s a t as k beyond the r out i ne exami nat i on of l and r ecor ds thatw as i nvol ved i n Me n n o n ite . ” D a v is O il Co m p a ny v. Mill

s , 873 F. 2d 774 ( 5th C i r . 1989) ( ci t i ng Be n de rv . Cit y o f Ro c h e s te r

, NY, 76 5 F . 2 d 7 (2 n d C ir . 1985) ) . I n D a v is O il , the hol derof a mi ner al l eas e s oughtt o i nval i dat e a j udi ci al s al e of l and o n d u e p ro c e s s g ro u n d s b e c a u s e h e w a s n e v e r g iv e n a c tu a l n o tic e o f t h e s a le . I d. T h e F ifth C i r cui tC our tof

A ppeal s exami ned the Me n n o n ite and Mul lane de ci s i ons a nd det erm i ned th a t co n stru c tiv e n o tice o f th e s a le d id n o t v io late n o tio n s o f d u e p ro c e ss b e c a u se it w o u ld

### 14

be “e xtr emel y cumber s om e” t o c om b thr ough the l and r ecor ds t o i dent i f y thos e w ho m i ght h a v e a m in e ra l in te re s t in th e p ro p e rt y . D a v is O il , 873 F. 2d at789. T he courtr ecogni zed thatthe l es s ee e as i l y coul d have a s s ur ed thathe w oul d have r ece i ved not i ce of the s al e had h e p a id a n o m in a l f

e e a n d p la c e d h is n a m e a n d a d d re s s o n fi le in th e m o rt g a g e re c o rd s . I d. at 79 0 -91 . A lth o u g h fail ing to d o so w o u ld n o t con sti tu te a w aive r of the lessee ’s con st i tuti on al ri gh tto du e p rocess , the av ai l abil i ty of a m eans to prot ecthis property int eres t w a s a fa c to r to b e c o n sid e re d w h e n d e ter m in in g w h e th e r h is id e n tity w a s re a so n a b ly a s c e rt a in a b le . I

d. at789- 90. ¶25. L i kew i s e, t he def endant s ass ertt hatt he pl ai nt i f f s ’ pre dece s s or s i n i nt er es tcoul d have pr ot ect ed thei ri nt er es t s had they un dert aken t he duty t o as s ur e thatthei rs ever ed mi ner al i n t e r e s t s we r e s e p a r a t e l y a s s e s s e d f o r1 9 4 1 t a x e s . F o l l o wi n g th e r e a s o n i n g f r o m D a v is O il , the t ax as s es s orw as underno obl i gat i on t o com b the l and r ecor ds t o i dent i f y i ndi vi dual s w ho
m ig h t ap p e a r to h a v e an inte re st in the lan d ’s m in e ra ls. T h e re fo re , p u b lica tio n an d n o tice to the s ur f ace ow ner s onl y, underthe ci r cumst ance s , di d notvi ol at e t he m i ner al ow ner s ’ due p ro c e s s ri g h ts . V . C oncl usi on ¶26 . T he pl ai nt i f

f s ’ ar gu m ents , tho ug h w el l present ed, are w i tho ut m eri t . A d v al or em t axes w er e as s es s ed f

or1941 i n com pl i ance w i th appl i cabl e l aw , and t he boar d of s upervi s or s w as u n d er n o o b li g ati o n , eith er b y statu te or c o n sti tuti o n , to eq u ali ze th e la n d ro ll in tha t yea r. I n addi t i on, beca us e the i dent i ty and w her eabout s of the ow ner s of

the s ever ed mi ner al interests w ere n o t rea d il y asc ertaina b le, p u b li ca ti o n an d n o ti ce to the su rface o w n ers w ere

### 15

s uf f i ci entt o sat i s f

y due proc es s . Fort he f or egoi ng re as ons , t he j udgm entof the C ovi ngt on C ounty C hance r y C our ti s her eby af f i r m ed. ¶ 2 7 . AFF I RM ED . CARL S ON AND GRAV ES , P . J J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H, LA M AR, CHANDLER AND PI ERCE, J J . , CONCUR. W AL L E R, C. J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .