Court Opinion

ID: 9586175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:08:01.806791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:51.376975
License: Public Domain

Judge Wynn
dissenting.
I am compelled to dissent in this matter because I find that the defendants have failed to meet the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-375 (1997). Specifically, I find that the defendants failed to exercise due diligence before resorting to publication as a means of providing plaintiff Nicholas Hardy with notice of the foreclosure proceedings against him.
As stated by the majority opinion, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-375 provides an in rem method of foreclosure to local taxing units. The notice provision of that statute requires the tax collector to inform the relevant party of the proceedings against him by certified mail if he “can obtain the current owner’s mailing address through the exercise of due diligence.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-375(c). Due Diligence, in turn, requires that he “use all resources reasonably available ... in attempting to locate [the party].” Fountain v. Patrick, 44 N.C. App. 584, 587, 261 S.E.2d 514, 516 (1980). When deciding whether the tax collector has used due diligence in attempting to locate a landowner, we are not bound by a restrictive mandatory checklist, rather, we *326decide whether due diligence has been used on a case-by-case basis. See Emanuel v. Fellows, 47 N.C. App. 340, 347, 267 S.E.2d 368, 372, disc. rev. denied, 301 N.C. 87 (1980).
In the case sub judice, defendants attempt to provide Hardy with notice of the foreclosure proceeding consisted solely of their sending a mailed copy of the Notice of Sale of Land under Execution to Hardy’s last address. I find that this solitary venture does not meet the due diligence requirement set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-375. See Barclay’s American/Mortgage Corp. v. Beca Enter., 116 N.C. App. 100, 103, 446 S.E.2d 883, 886 (1994) (holding that sending a certified letter to the defendant’s last known address, standing alone, did not constitute due diligence). Indeed, the defendants had other simple and low-cost methods of obtaining Hardy’s whereabouts — such as calling the country club where the property was located — -which they failed to utilize. Thus, they failed to meet the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-375 and therefore I would reverse the trial court’s holding.