Ark. Code Ann. § 26-37-301 (2026)

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Notes, Property — Notice to Mortgagees in Tax Sales, 7 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 437.

Survey — Property, 10 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 605.

Survey of Legislation, 2003 Arkansas General Assembly, Taxation, Homestead Owner Redemption, 26 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 502.

Annual Survey of Caselaw, Tax Law, 26 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 975.

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

Constitutionality.

This section fulfills constitutional due process requirements and provides sufficient notice to nonresident landowners prior to their property being sold. Tsann Kuen Enters. Co. v. Campbell, 355 Ark. 110, 129 S.W.3d 822 (2003).

Applicability.

Actual personal service of notice under subdivision (e)(1) of this section was not required in a tax sale case in which there was no evidence that the property involved was a “homestead,” as defined in § 26-26-1122, and where a signed receipt, indicating that the notice was received, was returned to the commissioner. Metro Empire Land Ass'n v. Arlands, 2012 Ark. App. 350, 415 S.W.3d 594 (2012).

Compliance.

Trial court properly found that the Commissioner of State Lands strictly complied with this section where the commissioner sent notice by certified mail to the taxpayers concerning the impending sale of their property for delinquent taxes; the statute does not require the Commissioner of State Lands to take every step possible to see that the letter arrives in the property owner's hands. Jones v. Double “D” Props., 352 Ark. 39, 98 S.W.3d 405 (2003).

Commissioner of State Lands provided adequate notice to a prior owner of a tax deficiency and tax sale 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 § 26-35-705. 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).

Commissioner of State Lands strictly complies with this section when, prior to a tax sale, it sends notice by certified mail to the last known address of the property owner; moreover, this section does not require the commissioner to take every step possible to ensure that the notice arrives in the property owner's hand. Jones v. Flowers, 359 Ark. 443, 198 S.W.3d 520 (2004), rev'd, 547 U.S. 220, 126 S. Ct. 1708, 164 L. Ed. 2d 415 (2006).

Where state had attempted to provide the property owners and delinquent tax payers with notice, both via certified mail and through publication in the newspaper, it had complied with the provisions of this section and the tax sale was valid. Jones v. Flowers, 359 Ark. 443, 198 S.W.3d 520 (2004), rev'd, 547 U.S. 220, 126 S. Ct. 1708, 164 L. Ed. 2d 415 (2006).

Where tax notices sent to landowner contained the sale dates and the tracts offered for sale at public auctions on those dates, the requirements of this section were satisfied. Price v. Rylwell, LLC, 95 Ark. App. 228, 235 S.W.3d 908 (2006).

Although debtor did not receive notice of a purchase of property that was sold pursuant to a tax sale because the debtor was not on record as having an interest in the property, the debtor had established that she nevertheless had an equitable interest in the property because she was in possession of it, she claimed to have an oral rent-to-purchase agreement with the owner, and she had made improvements on the property. The debtor was thus entitled to challenge the transfer through a tax sale made to the purchaser. In re Paro, 362 B.R. 419 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2007).

Taxpayer's action to set aside a limited warranty deed and to quiet title in the taxpayer's name was properly dismissed because the Commissioner of State Lands strictly complied with the notice requirements in subdivision (a)(1) and subsection (b) of this section, and the notice of a tax sale of the taxpayer's real property provided by the Commissioner met federal due process constraints. Morris v. Landnpulaski, LLC, 2009 Ark. App. 356, 309 S.W.3d 212 (2009).

Lack of Compliance.

Buyer's tax deed was properly voided because the Commissioner of State Lands failed to notify the bank as an interested party since it held a recorded interest in the property at the time of certification, and the right to challenge the tax sale based on the failure to give notice to the bank passed to the mortgagor when it acquired an interest in the property through the foreclosure sale. RWR Props. v. Mid-State Trust VIII, 102 Ark. App. 115, 282 S.W.3d 297 (2008).

Last Known Address.

Where the Commissioner of State Lands first sent certified notice to the wrong address, but then sent another certified notice to the correct address, the second notice satisfied the statutory notice requirement. Wilson v. Daniels, 64 Ark. App. 181, 980 S.W.2d 274 (1998).

Notice.

Negotiated tax sale to the purchasers was not void for lack of notice to the mortgage holder where it had received actual notice of the negotiated sale, but had taken no action, and the lack of notice of a public tax sale did not deprive it of due process because a public sale had not taken place and as a result, no property interest was lost and no objections to such a sale were necessary. Citifinancial Mortg. Co. v. Matthews, 372 Ark. 167, 271 S.W.3d 501 (2008).

Trial court erred in awarding summary judgment to a lender in its foreclosure action against a buyer of property at a tax sale because there was no requirement under subdivision (a)(1) of this section that the lender receive actual notice of the tax sale; there was a question as to whether the Commissioner of State Lands was required to take any additional steps to provide the lender with notice. Jarsew, LLC v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 2009 Ark. App. 324, 308 S.W.3d 161 (2009).

Summary judgment was appropriate because there was no dispute that notice to the landowner of the pending tax sale was a single unclaimed letter sent by certified mail; some additional step reasonably calculated to give the landowner notice was required, and a mailing to the other landowners did not satisfy the requirements of due process. RWR Props. v. Young, 2009 Ark. App. 332, 308 S.W.3d 183 (2009).

Plain language of the statute only requires notice to a property owner “by certified mail.” The statute does not require actual notice to the property owner. Morris v. Landnpulaski, LLC, 2009 Ark. App. 356, 309 S.W.3d 212 (2009).

Trial court erred in dismissing a purchaser's petition to quiet title to property it bought at a tax sale because the notice of the tax sale the Commissioner of State Lands provided to the owners of the property complied with this section and with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since the Commissioner sent the notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, and because the receipt was signed and returned, the Commissioner was not aware that the notice had failed; the address was correct, the return receipt was returned to the Commissioner with a signature, and no additional steps were required to satisfy due process. Esterosto, LLC v. Kinsey, 2010 Ark. App. 429, 374 S.W.3d 907 (2010).

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not requires the Commissioner of State Lands to investigate every signature to insure it is in fact the signature of the property owner because actual notice is not required and the failure of notice in a specific case does not establish the inadequacy of the attempted notice; as long as the Commissioner performed as required by the statute and the statutorily prescribed notice complied with due process, that is, the notice was reasonably calculated to reach the intended recipient, it has done enough. Esterosto, LLC v. Kinsey, 2010 Ark. App. 429, 374 S.W.3d 907 (2010).

After the initial notice to the owner of mineral rights of a tax deficiency sale and redemption rights was returned due to an incorrect address, the Commissioner of State Lands follow up, with only one reasonable additional step to try to provide notice, was not sufficient to meet due process requirements even though it complied with state law. Linn Farms & Timber Ltd. P'ship v. Union Pac. R.R., 661 F.3d 354 (8th Cir. 2011) (decided under prior version of statute).

Actual personal service of notice of the right to redeem property sold at a tax sale under subdivision (a)(1) of this section was not required. The Commissioner of State Lands sent notices by certified mail to the owner and its representative at their business address; these notices were returned, but the commissioner then sent notice to the current residents of the property, and a receipt for this notice was received, albeit with an illegible signature. Metro Empire Land Ass'n v. Arlands, 2012 Ark. App. 350, 415 S.W.3d 594 (2012).

Commissioner of State Lands' reliance on the notice scheme in this section was unavailing as that scheme did not insulate the State from the Due Process Clause's requirements, the Commissioner had actual written notice of the purchaser's interest in the parcel, and thus, the State was required to take additional reasonable steps to verify whether the purchaser had an interest in the parcel before depriving it of its ownership. Rylwell, LLC v. Men Holdings 2, LLC, 2014 Ark. 522, 452 S.W.3d 96 (2014).

Cited: Bill's Printing, Inc. v. Carder, 82 Ark. App. 466, 120 S.W.3d 611 (2003); Parkerson v. Brown, 2013 Ark. App. 718, 430 S.W.3d 864 (2013).