Opinion ID: 1587952
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutional Due Process Requirements

Text: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require[s] that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and [an] opportunity for [a] hearing appropriate to the nature of the case. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 313, 70 S.Ct. 652. [3] The fundamental right to have a meaningful opportunity to be heard has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest. Id. at 314, 70 S.Ct. 652. A landowner whose property is to be sold for delinquent taxes undoubtedly has a vested ownership interest in the subject property and is therefore entitled to notice of a pending tax deed sale. Dawson, 608 So.2d at 808. The United States Supreme Court has explained that to satisfy due process, any notice given must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314, 70 S.Ct. 652; see also Delta Prop. Mgmt., 875 So.2d at 447 (quoting Mullane ); Dawson, 608 So.2d at 808 (quoting Mullane ). Determining whether a particular method of notice is reasonably calculated to provide adequate notice requires due regard for the practicalities and peculiarities of the case. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314-15, 70 S.Ct. 652. Subject to this limitation, the legislature has the authority to determine the extent and character of the notice which shall be given by the state before property is sold for nonpayment of taxes. Dawson, 608 So.2d at 808. In Dawson, we addressed whether due process requires strict compliance with section 197.522(2) as well as section 197.522(1). Section 197.522(2) states that [i]n addition to the notice provided in subsection (1), the sheriff of the county in which the legal titleholder resides shall, at least 20 days prior to the date of sale, notify the legal titleholder of record of the property on which the tax certificate is outstanding. In Dawson, the legal titleholders asserted that the clerk's failure to provide proper notice of the location of the tax deed sale and the sheriff's failure to serve additional notice pursuant to section 197.522(2) rendered the tax deed invalid for lack of due process of law. See 608 So.2d at 807. In rejecting the contention that due process requires strict compliance with the notice provisions in both subsections of section 197.522, we explained that subsection (1) specifies the mandatory duties of the clerk upon an application for a tax deed and that subsection (2), which provides for additional notice by the sheriff, is directory only. Id. at 808. Therefore, a tax deed may not be set aside for failure to comply with section 197.522(2) where the clerk of court satisfies the requirements of section 197.522(1), id. at 810, which mandat[es] notice reasonably calculated to apprise landowners of the pending deprivation of their property. Id. at 808. In Dawson, we also considered whether sections 65.081(3) and 197.404, Florida Statutes (1987), which specified the defenses available to challenge either a tax deed or a tax deed sale, superseded section 197.522. See Dawson, 608 So.2d at 809. [4] Neither section 65.081(3) nor section 197.404 listed inadequate notice as an available defense. The Court ruled that these statutory provisions did not supersede the notice requirements set out in section 197.522, and therefore a legal titleholder could challenge the validity of a tax deed based on a lack of notice. See id. We reasoned that otherwise a tax deed would be valid even without compliance with any of the statutory notice requirements, which would contravene[] the `elementary and fundamental requirement of due process[,]' namely notice to the interested parties. Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314, 70 S.Ct. 652).