Opinion ID: 1210800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: lender's affidavit in support of summary process raises a host of fact issues for determination at trial

Text: ¶ 22 Lender argues that his grandson was not authorized to receive process on behalf of the mortgage company and hence the service received by him fails to meet the minimum due process standards. [50] In essence, what the lender tenders is a question of fact concerning facially valid service alleged to be fraught with a hidden infirmity that vitiates the process. ¶ 23 Generally, a letter placed in the mail is presumed to have been received. [51] To overcome the presumption here, the lender must show that the person who received the letter gained access to the box by intrusion rather than by means provided by the lender himself. [52] The original document returned by the post office is not in the record. Sans any paper trail documenting how the delivery was receipted, we can assume no more than that the letter was mailed to a correct address. But absent any proof in the record and any returned post office paperwork, we cannot likewise assume that it was mailed to the same address as that shown by the pertinent recorded instruments in the register of deeds' office. ¶ 24 By affidavit stating that an intruder retrieved the certified letter addressed to the mortgage company, lender overcame the law's presumption that the critical notice-bearing letter mailed by the county treasurer was received by the addressee-defendant. Moreover, the lender's position is aided by the principle that his knowledge  that the ad valorem taxes were then delinquent  did not equate with notice that a tax resale proceeding had been instituted and the redemption opportunity would stand subject to extinguishment. [53] ¶ 25 In the light of pertinent constitutional jurisprudence, among the material issues of fact tendered by lender's affidavit, which must be resolved by trial, are: (a) Was the mail in question directed to the lender's address shown on some recorded instrument or to any other place? (b) In whose name (or names) was the post office box registered? (c) Was the post office box rented by the entity to whom the letter was addressed or intended for delivery? (d) What was the lender's relationship to the person who retrieved the letter of notice from the post office box? (e) What means, if any, did the retriever use to secure the content of the lender's post office box? and (f) How did the letter's retriever obtain access to the box? Upon these material issues of fact the lender was entitled to an adversary hearing, and the county treasurer to an opportunity to refute the lender's denial-of-actual-notice scenario. This may be done by showing, among others, that the retriever's access to the box was gained either with lender-provided means or with his prior knowledge (or acquiescence). Although this contest over the quality of notice is litigated here within the framework of a purchaser's quiet title suit, the governing principles are the same as those which would apply in a suit for cancellation of the resale tax deed or in a contest over the efficacy of a judgment secured upon constitutionally infirm service. [54]