Court Opinion

ID: 9848048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:11:56.063768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:57.089288
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(dissenting). Title to property acquired by adverse possession matures into an absolute fee interest after the statutory prescriptive period has expired. Thus prior to the tax sale, the Sed-laks, not Dyer, owned the portion of the property containing the buildings.
The real issue in this case, which the majority fails to address, is the adequacy of the notice of the tax sale. Dyer, the “record owner,” was given notice. The Sed-laks, the actual owners, were not given notice.
Characterizing the proceeding as in rem is not determinative of the constitutional sufficiency of the notice given. The ultimate test of the adequacy of notice is a balancing test. Against the government’s interest in collecting taxes, we must balance the individual’s property right which is protected by the federal and state constitutions. Even where publication notice is generally sufficient, it is inadequate in a particular case in which the identity of the owner could have been ascertained by diligent inquiry.
In the circumstances of this case (e.g., confusing property descriptions in the deeds and tax sale for assessment on unimproved land, not on the improvements in issue in this case), I conclude that the notice did not measure up to the quality of notice which due process requires. I conclude that the county was obliged to make a good faith effort to look at the property and give notice to the Sedlaks, whose interest would have appeared on physical examination of the property. Because *645I conclude that the Sedlaks’ property has been taken without due process, I dissent.