Court Opinion

ID: 9807656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:12:08.962102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:26.304241
License: Public Domain

WINCHESTER, J.,
with whom TAYLOR, J. joins, dissenting,
T1 The Oklahoma State Constitution, echoing the United:States Constitution, provides that "[nlo person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." - Although, as the majority notes, the "definitional sweep" of this clause is coextensive with its federal counterpart, this Court's decisions with regard to state constitutional questions are based on Oklahoma law. In Re Adoption of K.P.M.A., 2014 OK 85, ¶17, n. 3, 341 P.3d 38, 44.
T2 The United States Supreme Court has held that, to comport with the Due Process Clause, States must provide "notice reasonably calculated, under all the cirenmstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). The Court in Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 170, 122 S.Ct. 694, 151 L.Ed.2d 597 (2002), expressly noted, however, that "heroic efforts" are not required. To the contrary, the Supreme Court.has rejected "[a] construction of the Due Process Clause which would place impossible or impractical obstacles in the way [of the State]." Mullane, 339 U.S. at *480313-14, 70 S.Ct. 652. In determining whether an individual has been afforded due process, therefore, courts must balance the State's interest in efficiently managing its administrative system and an individual's interest in adequate notice. See id. at 314, 70 S.Ct. 652. To that end, the Supreme Court has recognized that states need not achieve actual notice in order to satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause. See Dusenbery, 534 U.S. at 169-70, 122 S.Ct. 694.
183 Oklahoma's statute governing notice of delinquent taxes, 68 O.S.2011, § 3106,1 mandates that-prior to selling real property for which taxes have been unpaid for three or more years-county treasurers publish notice of taxes owed upon the property, as well as send notice by certified mail to the record owner of the property. Nothing in the text of the law requires that the county treasurer take additional steps to ensure the property owner receives actual notice. In fact, the statute notes that "[fjailure to receive said notice shall not invalidate said sale." Id.
1 4 In rare cases, however, this Court has required that the State do more than simply comply with the letter of the law in order to provide due process. But the only ciream-stances in which notice by mail and publication is inadequate under the Due Process Clause involve "situations where the state or local government knew at the outset that its notice efforts were destined to fail and knew how to rectify the problem prior to sending notice." Id. at 244 (citing Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38, 39, 93 S.Ct. 30, 34 L.Ed.2d 47 (1972) (per curiam) (intended recipient known to be in jail); Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U.S. 141, 145, 76 S.Ct. 724, 100 L.Ed. 1021 (1956) (intended recipient known to be incompetent and without a guardian)). In those situations, the county treasurer certainly has a responsibility to comply with the statute and take steps to ensure proper notice is served. But this duty arises from the implicit requirement that notice of an impending tax sale must be made in good faith-not from any requirement that county treasurers must always take steps to ensure actual notice. See Mullane, 339 U.S. at 315, 70 S.Ct. 652.
T5 Even though the county treasurer in this case knew from the certified mail receipt that the attempted delivery of notice had been unsuccessful, he certainly did not believe at the outset that his efforts were "destined to fail." A certified mail receipt verifies "that an article was delivered or that a delivery attempt was made."2 The absence of any receipt, therefore, indicates that the mail was lost, delayed, or otherwise rerouted from its intended destination, and should undoubtedly trigger an additional duty for the county treasurer to resend the mail or take other steps to comply with the statute. A "not deliverable as addressed" receipt, on the other hand, simply indicates that the certified mail service was unable to make actual contact with the property owner. Because the statute does not require the county treasurer to provide actual notice, and because a good-faith attempt at notice is sufficient under the Due Process Clause, see Mullane, 339 U.S. at 315, 70 S.Ct. 652, service that results in a "not deliverable as addressed" receipt (in addition to publication) satisfies the statutory and constitutional requirements.
T6 A majority of this Court would essentially redraft 68 O.S.2011, § 3106 and impose unreasonable and impractical burdens on the State in the exercise of its administrative duties. Specifically, the majority suggests that the county treasurer should have located the check with which the property owner last paid taxes. See supra, at ¶¶28-29. Not *481only was the check in this case written more than three years prior to the notice of delinquent taxes, but also there was no indication that the address on the check was in fact the owner's new place of residence. Many people use checks that do not match their current addresses, either for the sake of convenience (eg., so they do not need to order new checks after changing addresses) or due to special cireumstances (eg., when somebody other than the property owner pays the taxes). But under the majority's logic, 68 O.S. 2011, § 3106 requires that the county treasurer record every address on every check and every other document that comes to his office, and then send notice to each of those addresses in order to comport with due process. The majority demands that, whenever a county treasurer doubts whether an interested party has actually received notice, he must consider additional methods to provide such notice, including, but not limited to, sending certified mail to every address associated with the property owner, whether or not any of those addresses is the address of record in the county treasurer's office.3 And if those notices are ineffective, then the treasurer must consider additional methods, ad infinitum, to the point that he would effectively be required to achieve actual notice.
17 Not only does the majority's interpretation of the statute disregard existing case law holding quite clearly that county treasurers need not achieve actual notice, it also places counties at the mercy of delinquent taxpayers. To avoid being served notice, tax evaders could simply avoid contact with process servers standing on their doorsteps, or move to a different address and neglect to tell the county treasurer. Under the majority's holding, such evasive antics would require the treasurer to employ additional tactics to make contact with the property owner until either all possible methods are exhausted or the treasurer decides that the task is not worth its cost. Such requirements increase the amount of time and money that must be expended by the county to comply with the law. Those additional costs are then passed on to citizens who actually do pay their taxes.
18 Both parties and the majority recognize that the MelIntosh County Treasurer in this case complied with the requirements of 68 O.S.2011, § 3106. It is not the fault of the county that Crownover did not report his change of address, and it should not fall to the county to engage in a paper chase to locate a missing person. See Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 792, 798, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983) (holding that "notice mailed to [the affected party's] last known available address" is sufficient to satisfy due process). The constitutional requirement is not that individuals be provided with every process of law, only due process of law. What the majority opinion- and the Supreme Court in Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 126 S.Ct. 1708, 164 L.Ed.2d 415 (2006)-fails to supply is a clear definition of due process, Without that clarity, there is no limit to how far counties must go to provide notice sufficient under the Due Process Clause. Because in this case the county treagurer gave due process in supplying notice under the terms of the statute, the ruling of the Court of Civil Appeals should be affirmed. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

. The statute in pertinent part reads: "The county treasurer, according to the law, shall give notice of delinquent taxes and special assessments by publication once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks at any time after April 1, but prior to the end of September following the year the taxes were first due and payable, in some newspaper in the county to be designated by the county treasurer.... In addition to said published notice, the county treasurer shall give notice by mailing to the record owner of said real property as of the preceding December 31 or later as reflected by the records in the office of the county assessor, which records shall be updated based on real property conveyed after October 1 each year...."

. United States Postal Service, Certified Mail Receipt (Form 3800), available at https://store.usps. com,/store/browse/productDetailSingleSku.jsp? productId=P_FORM_3800.

. Because the majority does not specify what "other reasonable method[s]" are required to provide due process, such methods could easily include browsing phone books and searching the Internet for addresses associated with the property owner. Those resources are much easier for the county treasurer to locate (and maintain) than is a three-year-old check, but surely no one would mandate that county officials read through phone books to discharge their statutory duties. Yet that is the effect of the majority's argument.