|
Supreme Court Rules in Property Takeover Case By David Stout WASHINGTON, April 26 — The Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 3, today that Arkansas state officials were wrong to take away the home of a Little Rock man for nonpayment of real estate taxes. The majority held, in a ruling that could affect how other states handle property takeovers, that the officials did not do enough when they sent certified mail to 717 North Bryan Street, telling Gary Jones that he was delinquent in his taxes, and when they published a notice of public sale in The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. As it turned out, there was no public sale, because no bids were submitted. The state was thus permitted to negotiate a private sale of the property, and it did, to one Linda Flowers. The state then sent yet another certified letter to 717 North Bryan, telling Mr. Jones that his property was about to be sold unless he paid up. He did not pay, and Ms. Flowers bought the house in 2002 for just over $21,000, about a quarter of its fair market value. Mr. Jones learned about the sale from his daughter, who had learned about it after Ms. Flowers served an eviction notice. The problem for Mr. Jones — and, as it turned out, for the state of Arkansas — was that he had moved out of the house in 1993, after he and his wife separated, and apparently never knew that it was about to be sold. "Mr. Jones should have been more diligent with respect to his property, no question," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote. "People must pay their taxes, and the government may hold citizens accountable for tax delinquency. But before forcing a citizen to satisfy his debt by forfeiting his property, due process requires the government to provide adequate notice of the impending taking." Noting that the certified mail sent to 717 North Bryan had been returned because Mr. Jones was not there to sign for it, the chief justice wrote, "In response to the returned form suggesting that Jones had not received notice that he was about to lose his property, the state did — nothing." Joining the chief justice were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Their ruling overturned decisions by the Arkansas Supreme Court and a lower state court, which had found against Mr. Jones in holding that the state had met its obligations. The dissenters were Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy. Their dissent, written by Justice Thomas, essentially found that Mr. Jones had created his own problems, and that the state had fulfilled its duty in trying to notify him before the house was sold. Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. took no part in the case, Jones v. Flowers, No. 04-1447. He joined the court after the case was argued. The majority opinion said the justices took the case to resolve a conflict among the federal circuit courts and state supreme courts on whether the Fourteenth Amendment's due-process clause requires the government to take additional reasonable steps to notify a property when notice of a tax sale is returned undelivered. In this case, at least, the answer is "yes," the majority declared, citing the peculiarities of Mr. Jones's situation. He bought the house in 1967. His mortgage company paid the taxes each month, until 1997, when the mortgage was paid off. In April 2000, state officials attempted to notify Mr. Jones by certified mail of the delinquency. But no one was at home to sign for the mail, nor did anyone claim it at the post office within 15 days. The same thing happened two years later, when the sale was imminent. The state could have tried to notify Mr. Jones by regular mail, or by posting a notice on the house, the majority held today. "There is no reason to suppose that the state will ever be less than fully zealous in its efforts to secure the tax revenue it needs," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. "The same cannot be said for the state's efforts to ensure that its citizens receive property notice before the state takes action against them."
|
|
A Feast
|
