« Ind. Courts - Vigo County Legal System Overcrowded | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides one Indiana case today »

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Law - U.S. Supreme Court rules that homeowners need better notice before losing homes for back taxes

In a ruling today, Jones v. Flowers, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, said, as reported via this AP story (link thanks to How Appealing):

Arkansas officials should have done more when certified letters mailed to Jones' home were returned as unclaimed and when he failed to respond to a newspaper ad announcing the sale.

Roberts said many states require authorities to post notices on the doors of the homes up for sale or to send letters via regular mail that don't require signatures and can be left at the address.

States do not spare efforts to collect taxes, Roberts wrote. So, he said, they also should not spare efforts to track down owners of homes about to be sold off to pay delinquent taxes.

Roberts said states must take "additional reasonable" steps to provide notice. But he declined to define what those steps should be.

"In this case, the state is exerting extraordinary power - taking and selling a house," the chief justice wrote. "It is not too much to insist that the state do a bit more to attempt to let (a homeowner) know about it when the notice letter addressed to him is returned unclaimed."

Here is the report from Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog:
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that when a mailed notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, a state must take added steps to attempt to make sure the property owner knows the property is at risk before it may be sold. The Court said, however, that only "reasonable" additional steps need be taken, and then only when it is "practicable" to do so.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote for the majority in a 5-3 ruling, in Jones v. Flowers (04-1477). New Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., took no part. The case involved a Little Rock, Ark., man who lost his house in a tax forfeiture sale because he did not receive notice until too late to redeem the property.

Roberts' opinion drew the support of the Court's more liberal members, Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 26, 2006 02:45 PM
Posted to General Law Related