Title: Blaney v. Inhabitants of Town of Shapleigh
Citation: 455 A.2d 1381
Docket Number: 
State: Maine
Issuer: Maine Supreme Court
Date: February 1, 1983

Decided February 1, 1983. Ahlgren & Perrault, John Perrault (orally), Portsmouth, N.H., for plaintiff. Gary C. Wood, Maine Municipal Ass'n, Augusta, amicus curiae. R. John Wuesthoff (orally), Portland, for Inhabitants of Town of Shapleigh. Nicholas C. Scaccia, Sanford, for William S. Small. Before McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, ROBERTS, CARTER, VIOLETTE and WATHEN, JJ. CARTER, Justice. The Town of Shapleigh appeals the grant of a summary judgment in favor of Parker and Evelyn Blaney entered in the Superior Court, York County. The Blaneys brought an action against the Town of Shapleigh to *1382 establish that the town had improperly claimed tax foreclosure and title to their property. Pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 54(b), the court entered final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the Town of Shapleigh. We affirm the result reached by the Superior Court. On March 11, 1957, Parker Blaney purchased the subject real estate. According to the deed, the property was located in Acton, Maine. On April 10, 1959, Parker transferred the real estate by deed to himself and to Evelyn Blaney, who was then Parker's wife, as joint tenants. The deed was recorded on September 2, 1969. The Blaneys transferred the property by mortgage deed to the Maine National Bank which was recorded on September 9, 1969. During the late 1950's, Parker paid taxes to the Town of Acton. In the early 1960's, he began paying taxes to the Town of Shapleigh. The Town of Acton ceased billing Parker for taxes. It was explained at oral argument that Acton entirely taxed the land because the deeds stated that the land was located in Acton. During the 1960's both towns apparently became satisfied that the metes and bounds description established that the land was, in fact, located in Shapleigh.[1] On November 8, 1978, the Town of Shapleigh sought to collect 1978 real property taxes from Parker Blaney. On approximately July 19, 1979, Parker paid the town $154.00 for the 1978 taxes. On October 18, 1979, as required by 36 M.R.S.A. § 942 (1978),[2] the town sent a *1383 ten-day notice of tax lien by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Parker Blaney, 98914 Kaonohi Place, Aiea, Hawaii 96701. The notice indicated that Parker owed outstanding taxes for the 1978 tax year in the amount of $7.33, together with interest and costs of $20.38. The Blaneys had separated in October of 1979. Consequently, although Evelyn was living at the address to which the notice was sent, Parker at that time was living in Honolulu. Parker had not given the town any notice of his change of address. Because the certified letter was addressed to Parker, Evelyn could not sign for it. Evelyn did not have any knowledge of the contents of the letter. On November 7, 1979, the letter was returned to the town. Parker, therefore, never received the ten-day notice. On November 5, 1979, as required by 36 M.R.S.A. § 942, the town filed a tax lien certificate on the property and recorded it in the York County Registry of Deeds. According to the certificate, the property was located in the Town of Shapleigh not in the Town of Acton. A true copy of this tax lien certificate was not mailed to either Evelyn Blaney or the Maine National Bank. On March 31, 1981, as required by 36 M.R.S.A. § 943 (1978),[3] the town mailed a *1384 notice of impending automatic foreclosure by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Parker at the Aiea, Hawaii address. On April 6, 1981, Evelyn forwarded this letter to Parker. Parker received this letter at his Fairfax, Virginia residence. On May 5, 1981, the town claimed tax foreclosure and title to the property. Consequently, although on May 30, 1981, Parker forwarded to the town a check in the amount of $27.71, which would have covered the amount of delinquent taxes, the town returned the check to Parker. On September 17, 1981, the town sold the real estate to the defendant, William A. Small, for $25,000. The municipal quit-claim deed was recorded on October 8, 1981, in the York County Registry of Deeds. The Blaneys subsequently filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against both the town and Small, claiming that the town failed to comply with the notice requirements of 36 M.R.S.A. §§ 942-943 and that the town violated the Blaneys' due process rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard as guaranteed by the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution and article I, section 6-A of the Maine Constitution. The plaintiffs moved for a summary judgment which was supported by affidavits from both Parker and Evelyn Blaney. On behalf of the town, a counter-affidavit was filed by R. John Wuesthoff, Esq. The justice first determined whether the town's failure to send Evelyn Blaney a copy of the tax lien certificate destroyed the town's title to the property. The justice found that it was undisputed that Evelyn was a record owner and that under 36 M.R. S.A. § 942 she was entitled to a true copy of the tax lien certificate. According to the justice, failure to comply with the statutory requirements rendered the town's title void. The court further determined whether under 36 M.R.S.A. § 942 the town was required to send Parker actual notice of the filing of the lien. The justice first reasoned that by taking no additional steps to notify Parker after the certified letter had been returned, the town's conduct was fundamentally unfair. The justice also reasoned that under Cummings v. Town of Oakland, 430 A.2d 825 (Me.1981), actual notice of the filing of a lien under 36 M.R.S.A. § 942 was constitutionally mandated. The court stated that in Cummings, the Law Court held that because the ten-day notice required by 36 M.R.S.A. § 942 was actually received, the failure to receive actual notice of an impending automatic foreclosure under 36 M.R.S.A. § 943 did not violate the Constitution. As a result of the court's interpretation of the holding in Cummings, it concluded that in this case the failure to receive the ten-day notice of section 942 violated the Constitution. Entering a final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the town pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 54(b), the justice granted the summary judgment.[4] I. In granting the summary judgment in favor of the Blaneys, the justice reasoned, in part, that under Cummings v. Town of Oakland, 430 A.2d 825 (Me.1981), actual notice of the section 942 ten-day notice was constitutionally required. In Cummings, we stated: The fundamental principle underlying the holdings in these cases is one of fairness: where an initial notice intended to affect constitutional rights is required, it cannot *1385 be given by methods or under circumstances which the giver of notice could reasonably anticipate will be ineffective in communicating knowledge to the person or entity entitled to receive the notice. The principle is articulated in Mullane [v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950)] in this language: The notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information,.... ... The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it. 339 U.S. at 314-15, 70 S. Ct. at 657 [, 94 L.Ed. at 873-74]. In Mullane, the Court said that this principle was violated because the bank in settling a trust gave the required notice by publication when it had access to a list of names and addresses of those whose rights were directly affected by the content of the notice. In Covey [v. Town of Somers, 351 U.S. 141 , 76 S. Ct. 724, 100 L. Ed. 1021 (1956)], the Court again found a violation of the constitutional standard where a notice of tax foreclosure was sent and received by a property owner known to be incompetent by the town officials responsible for giving the notice. In Robinson [v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38 , 93 S. Ct. 30, 34 L. Ed. 2d 47 (1972)], the violation occurred because the notice of State foreclosure on personal property was given by certified mail to an owner's address as listed in the records of the Secretary of State (as prescribed by statute), but at a time when the State officials knew that the property owner was not at that address because he was in the custody of the State as a prison inmate. However, those cases, and the factual foundations present in each for the application of the principle of "fundamental fairness" as a constituent element of due process of law, are all to be distinguished from the case at bar. 430 A.2d at 831 (emphasis added). A constitutionally deficient notice is therefore one given by means which the "giver of notice could reasonably anticipate will be ineffective" to communicate actual knowledge of the contents, under the circumstances, to one entitled to receive the notice. 430 A.2d at 831. In construing the constitutional import of section 943, all that we held was that the section 943 notice of impending foreclosure was not of constitutional dimension. We did not hold that actual notice of the section 942 ten-day notice was constitutionally mandated. The justice, therefore, improperly interpreted Cummings. In this case, we need not decide whether the section 942 ten-day notice of a tax lien claim, which was sent by certified mail and which was returned to the town, was given by means that, in the circumstances, "the giver of notice could have reasonably anticipated would be ineffective" to communicate its contents to Parker Blaney. We hold that the foreclosure is void for another reason. II. In its brief, the town argues that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Evelyn Blaney is a record owner of the property in question. In her affidavit, Evelyn stated that she is a record owner of the property taxed by the Town of Shapleigh. In an affidavit submitted by R. John Wuesthoff, Esq., he stated that Evelyn's name does not appear in the York County Registry of Deeds as a record owner of any Shapleigh property.[5] Because these *1386 affidavits conflict, a genuine issue of fact is presented. M.R.Civ.P. 56. Thus, entry of summary judgment at the Superior Court level was inappropriate. At oral argument before this Court, however, Wuesthoff, representing the town, conceded that he had searched for Evelyn's name only as a record owner of property indexed as located in Shapleigh. He further conceded that Evelyn was a record owner of property identified by deed as located in Acton. He stated that the metes and bounds description of the property located in Shapleigh was the same as the description of the land identified as located in Acton. Finally, although the property was actually located in Shapleigh, Wuesthoff conceded the Town of Shapleigh knew that the deed improperly identified the property as being located in the Town of Acton.[6] The force of these concessions makes it clear that there is, in fact, no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Evelyn was a record owner of title to the property in question; she clearly was a record holder of such title. Alternatively, the town asserts that Evelyn Blaney can not be considered a record owner because she did not notify the assessors as required by 36 M.R.S.A. § 555 and § 557 (1978). When a statute imposing or enforcing a tax or other burden on the citizen is susceptible of more than one interpretation, the court will interpret the statute in a light most favorable to the citizen. McCarty v. Greenlawn Cemetery Ass'n, 185 Me. 388, 392-93, 185 A.2d 127 , 129 (1962) (quoting Millett v. Mullen, 95 Me. 400, 415, 49 A. 871, 873 (1901)). Title 36 of M.R.S.A., chapter 105, subchapter II provides for real property taxes which may be imposed by cities or towns. Section 555 states in part: A tenant in common or a joint tenant may be considered sole owner for the purposes of taxation, unless he notifies the assessors what his interest is. . . . (emphasis added) and section 557 states: When assessors continue to assess real estate to the person to whom it was last assessed, such assessment is valid, although ownership or occupancy has changed, unless previous written notice to the assessors has been given of such change and of the name of the person to whom it has been transferred or surrendered. Sections 555 and 557 seek to protect tax collectors from having to search for assessible owners of the property. These statutes place the burden upon the previously assessed owner to notify the tax collector that ownership has changed hands or that other owners now exist. See Inhabitants of Town of Canton v. Livermore Falls Trust Co., 136 Me. 103, 3 A.2d 429 (1939) (court held that assessor, in laying assessments, may treat holder of title as record owner *1387 without further inquiry). These statutes specifically address the assessment of taxes. Title 36 of M.R.S.A., chapter 105, subchapter IX, article 2, however, provides the procedure by which a city or town may enforce a lien on real estate for delinquent taxes. Specifically, section 942 provides the procedure for imposing a tax lien certificate.[7] The statute provides in part: At the time of the recording of the tax lien certificate . . . in all cases the tax collector . . . shall send by certified mail, return receipt requested, to each record holder of a mortgage on said real estate, to his last known address, a true copy of the tax lien certificate. If the real estate has not been assessed to its record owner, the tax collector shall send by certified mail, return receipt requested, a true copy of the tax lien certificate to the record owner. (Emphasis added.) Section 942 seeks to protect a record owner who does not pay the assessed taxes. The statute clearly provides that if the real estate has not been assessed to its record owner, then the record owner shall be notified of the tax lien certificate. 36 M.R.S.A. § 942. The statute recognizes that such a record owner has a right to notice before his or her property is taken in payment of delinquent taxes. To suggest that sections 555 and 557 are incorporated into section 942 violates the clear language of section 942, which seeks to provide notice of tax lien to those record owners who are not assessed taxes.[8] Evelyn, therefore, did not have to notify the town to be considered a record owner for the purposes of section 942. It is a well-established principle that there must be strict compliance with statutory requirements to divest property owners of their titles for nonpayment of taxes. Failure to follow strictly the statutorily delineated requirements will destroy the validity of the tax lien certificate and will prevent the town from acquiring title under the tax lien foreclosure procedures. Arsenault v. Inhabitants of Town of Roxbury, 275 A.2d 598 , 599-600 (Me.1971); see also City of Auburn v. Mandarelli, 320 A.2d 22 , 26 (Me.1974). Failure to provide Evelyn Blaney with proper notice rendered the town's tax lien certificate void. The entry is Judgment affirmed. Remanded for further proceedings on the counterclaim and cross-claim. All concurring.