Here, the notice of violation told defendant to remove the junk or face fines. Following Memphis Light, we must conclude that the notice was not reasonably calculated to inform defendant that he could contest the determination that he was in violation of the zoning regulations and that he had only fifteen days to take action. Applying the Mathews factors in this case, we first note that due process concerns arise whenever the state deprives an individual of an interest in the use of real or personal property. Traverso v. People ex rel. Dep't of Transp.
Defendant has a protectable property interest in the junk cars.
In addition to possible deprivation of his property, defendant is subject to substantial fines for failure to comply with the notice. The burden of informing a party of this procedure in the notice of the violation is minuscule and will minimize erroneous deprivations of property rights. We reject the contention that statutory notice of the right to a hearing is adequate. As the Memphis Light Court acknowledged, notice provided to people of various levels of education, experience and resources should clearly inform the party of the availability of an opportunity to be heard. A similar statement was found insufficient by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Wilson, where a property owner challenged the notices he had received informing him that his property was in violation of health regulations.