462 U.S. 791, 796–797 (1983)
Alfred Jean Moore purchased property in Elkhart, Indiana, from the Mennonite Board of Missions.1 Moore executed a mortgage in favor of MBM to secure a $14,000 obligation.2 The mortgage was recorded in the Elkhart County Recorder's Office on March 1, 1973.3 Under its terms, Moore was responsible for paying all property taxes.4
Without MBM's knowledge, Moore failed to pay the taxes.5 In 1977, Elkhart County initiated proceedings to sell the property for nonpayment of taxes.6 The county posted notice in the courthouse and published notice once each week for three consecutive weeks.7 It mailed certified notice to Moore but provided no notice to MBM.8
The property was sold at public auction to Richard Adams on August 8, 1977, for $1,167.75.9 A two-year redemption period followed.10 Neither Moore nor MBM took action to redeem the property during this period.11
Moore continued making monthly payments to MBM.12 As a result, MBM remained unaware of the sale until August 16, 1979.13 By then the redemption period had expired, and Moore still owed MBM $8,237.19.14
In November 1979, Adams filed suit in state court to quiet title to the property.15 MBM opposed summary judgment by arguing inadequate notice of the tax sale.16 The trial court upheld the Indiana tax sale statute.17 The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.18 The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in 1982.19
Whether notice by publication and posting provides a mortgagee of real property with adequate notice of a proceeding to sell the mortgaged property for nonpayment of taxes?20
Prior to an action which will affect an interest in life, liberty, or property protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a State must provide notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.21 A mortgagee possesses a substantial property interest that is significantly affected by a tax sale.22 When the mortgagee is identified in a mortgage that is publicly recorded, constructive notice by publication must be supplemented by notice mailed to the mortgagee's last known available address, or by personal service.23
No. The mortgage was recorded in the Elkhart County Recorder's Office on March 1, 1973.24 The county provided notice by posting in the courthouse and publishing once each week for three consecutive weeks but mailed certified notice only to the owner Moore.25 The mortgagee Mennonite Board of Missions received no notice of the tax sale proceeding.26 Since the mortgagee's identity and address were reasonably ascertainable from the public record, the means employed were not reasonably calculated to provide actual notice to the mortgagee.27
The manner of notice provided to the mortgagee did not meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.28
Related opinions on this issue
Justice O’Connor dissented from the majority's holding.29 She argued that the Court had adopted a novel per se rule requiring notice by mail or personal service to ensure actual notice whenever a legally protected property interest exists and the party's identity is reasonably ascertainable.30 This approach rejects the balancing of state and individual interests required by Mullane and its progeny.
O’Connor stressed the state's strong interest in the efficient collection of tax revenues through established procedures for tax sales.31 She pointed out that mortgagees have both the ability and the incentive to protect their interests by monitoring tax payments on the mortgaged property, which occur with regularity.32 In this case, the Mennonite Board could have taken simple steps such as requiring copies of tax receipts or checking public records.33
O’Connor concluded that the Indiana statutes satisfied due process because the balance weighed in favor of the state's chosen methods of notice.34