Note, Constitutional & Property Law — Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause & Notice to Be Heard — It Felt So Right But Was All So Wrong: United States Supreme Court Rules Arkansas's Tax-Foreclosure Notice Procedure Fails to Satisfy Due Process Clause When Certified Mail Notice Returns “Unclaimed” (Jones v. Flowers, 126 S. Ct. 1708 (2006)), 30 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 179.
Case Notes
Notice.
Tax forfeiture sale of the real property of a nonresident landowner was approved because the landowner moved its corporate office from Illinois to California and did not notify the Commissioner of State Lands of the change of address as required; thus, when the Commissioner mailed the landowner notice of the delinquency and notice of the tax forfeiture sale to the landowner's old address, and published notice in newspapers, the Commissioner performed all the acts that it was required to perform. Tsann Kuen Enters. Co. v. Campbell, 355 Ark. 110, 129 S.W.3d 822 (2003).
The Commissioner of State Lands provided adequate notice to a prior owner of a tax deficiency and tax sale as required by § 26-37-301 where there was some confusion at the county level as to the last known address, the commissioner mailed the notice to the address certified by the county, and the former owner had not furnished its correct address as required by this section. Mays v. St. Pat Props., LLC, 357 Ark. 482, 182 S.W.3d 84, cert. denied, 543 U.S. 943, 125 S. Ct. 353, 160 L. Ed. 2d 255 (2004).
Although this section provided strong support for the argument by the Commissioner of State Lands that mailing a certified letter to a property owner at the property's address was reasonable, it did not alter the reasonableness of the Commissioner's position that he was not required to do more when the notice was promptly returned “unclaimed.” Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 126 S. Ct. 1708, 164 L. Ed. 2d 415 (2006).
Cited:
Jones v. Flowers, 359 Ark. 443, 198 S.W.3d 520 (2004).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006).
Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006). · cites it 10דThe Arkansas statutory scheme is reasonably calculated to provide notice, the Commissioner continues, because it provides for notice by certified mail to an address that the property owner is responsible for keeping up to date.”
Tsann Kuen Enter. Co. v. Campbell, 129 S.W.3d 822 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 4דTsann Kuen argues that, in the present case, the probable value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards can be demonstrated because if the tax collector had posted notice on the property or mailed notice to the physical address of the property, then the caretaker…”
Jones v. Flowers, 198 S.W.3d 520 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 4דIn so doing, this court recognized that while Tsann had an interest in the property sold, the court also had to consider the State’s interest and whether additional procedural safeguards would be unduly burdensome to the State.”
Caplash v. Johnson, 230 F. Supp. 3d 128 (W.D.N.Y. 2017). “1708 (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 26-35-705 (“In the event that the mailing address or electronic address information of the taxpayer changes, the taxpayer has an obligation to furnish the correct mailing address or electronic address information.”
Mays v. St. Pat Props., LLC, 182 S.W.3d 84 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 3דUnder Ark. Code Ann. § 26-35-705 , appellant had “the obligation to furnish the correct address,” and apparently, appellant failed to meet that obligation.”
United States v. Leopoldo Rivera-Valdes, 157 F.4th 978 (9th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2ד(“Ark. Code Ann. § 26-35-705 provides strong support for the Commissioner’s argument that mailing a certified letter to Jones at 717 North Bryan Street was reasonably calculated to reach him.”
In Re Paro, 362 B.R. 419 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2007). · cites it 2דHowever, the State is required to send only one notice to the record owner at the record owner's last known address, and the owner is charged with keeping a correct address on file with the tax collector under Ark.Code Ann. § 26-35-705. See generally Mays v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.