Jones v. Flowers

Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the due process requirement that a state give notice to an owner before selling his property to satisfy his unpaid taxes . The Court ruled, 5-3, that after a mailed notice was returned unclaimed, a state was required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to take additional reasonable steps to notify the owner before the sale could proceed. The Court's opinion was delivered by Chief Justice John G. Roberts , his fourth majority opinion after his confirmation to the Court in 2005 and his first to provoke any dissenting opinions .

The Court had last addressed the issue of notice in _Dusenbery v. United States _, which held that the government need only take steps reasonably calculated to provide notice even if actual notice is not achieved. The four justices who dissented in Dusenbery formed the majority with Roberts in Jones v. Flowers, distinguishing the prior case on the basis that the government in Dusenbery did not know that its method of notice had failed before the taking occurred. Justice Clarence Thomas , in dissent, believed the Court was instead undermining Dusenbery, which he argued implicitly dictated a result contrary to the majority's decision.

Contents

• 1 Background

  • 1.1 Tax delinquency and sale

  • 1.2 State court proceedings

• 2 Opinion of the Court

  • 2.1 Roberts' majority opinion

    • 2.1.1 Reasonably calculated to give notice

    • 2.1.2 Additional reasonable steps

  • 2.2 Thomas' dissent

• 3 Subsequent developments

• 4 Footnotes

• 5 External links

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jones_v._Flowers&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

Tax delinquency and sale

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jones_v._Flowers&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Tax delinquency and sale")

In 1967, Gary Jones purchased a house in Little Rock, Arkansas , in which he lived with his wife until they separated in 1993. Jones then moved into an apartment in Little Rock, and his wife continued to live in the house. Jones paid his mortgage each month for 30 years, and the mortgage company paid Jones' property taxes . However, after Jones paid off his mortgage in 1997, his wife failed to pay the property taxes, and the property was certified as delinquent .

In April 2000, Mark Wilcox , the Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands , attempted to notify Jones of his tax delinquency, and his right to redeem the property, by mailing a certified letter to Jones at the house. The packet of information stated that unless Jones redeemed the property, it would be subject to public sale two years later on April 17, 2002. Nobody was home to sign for the letter, and nobody appeared at the post office to retrieve the letter within the next 15 days. The post office returned the unopened packet to the Commissioner marked "unclaimed."

Two years later, and just a few weeks before the public sale, the Commissioner published a notice of public sale in the _Arkansas Democrat-Gazette _. No bids were submitted, which permitted the State to negotiate a private sale of the property. Several months later, Linda Flowers submitted a purchase offer. The Commissioner mailed another certified letter to Jones at the house, attempting to notify him that his house would be sold to Flowers if he did not pay his taxes. Like the first letter, the second was also returned to the Commissioner marked "unclaimed." Flowers subsequently purchased the house at approximately a quarter of its fair market value . Immediately after the 30-day period for postsale redemption passed, Flowers had an unlawful detainer notice delivered to the property. The notice was served on Jones' daughter, who contacted Jones and notified him of the unpaid taxes and the tax sale.

State court proceedings

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jones_v._Flowers&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: State court proceedings")

Jones filed a lawsuit in Pulaski County Circuit Court against the Commissioner and Flowers, alleging that the Commissioner's failure to provide notice of the tax sale and of Jones' right to redeem resulted in the taking of his property without due process . The Commissioner and Flowers moved for summary judgment on the ground that the two unclaimed letters sent by the Commissioner were a constitutionally adequate attempt at notice, and Jones filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner and Flowers, concluding that the Arkansas tax sale statute, which set forth the notice procedure followed by the Commissioner, complied with constitutional due process requirements.

Jones appealed , and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court noted Supreme Court precedent stating that due process does not require actual notice , and that attempting to provide notice by certified mail satisfied due process in the circumstances presented.

Opinion of the Court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jones_v._Flowers&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")

The Supreme Court granted certiorari

to resolve a conflict among the Circuits and state supreme courts concerning whether the Due Process Clause requires the government to take additional reasonable steps to notify a property owner when notice of a tax sale is returned undelivered. The United States Solicitor General was granted leave to participate as _amicus curiae _, and argued in support of the Commissioner's position.

In a five-justice opinion delivered by Chief Justice John G. Roberts , the Court reversed the Arkansas Supreme Court and ruled that, under the circumstances, the State's sale of Jones' property violated due process. It held that "when mailed notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, the State must take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling his property, if it is practicable to do so." Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissent , arguing that the State's attempts went beyond any requirements the Court's prior precedents had established.

Roberts' majority opinion

(https://en.wik

…