Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court Addresses Notice of Foreclosure Sales
When a property owner fails to pay real estate taxes, due process requires that the state make reasonable efforts to notify the owner of the resulting foreclosure proceeding. State and local statutory schemes often require the state to notify the owner by regular or certified mail. But if the notification is returned unclaimed or undeliverable, must the state make additional efforts to notify the owner? In Jones v. Flowers, 2006 U.S. Lexis 3451, the Supreme Court recently addressed this question, and held that when notice of a tax sale, sent certified mail, is returned to the state unclaimed, the due process clause requires the State to take 'additional reasonable steps' to provide notice to the property owner prior to the sale. The language of the Jones opinion casts doubt on the validity of the leading New York case on this issue, Kennedy v. Mossafa. 100 N.Y.2d 1
The Case
In Jones, property owner Gary Jones and his wife occupied their home for 25 years. Jones paid the mortgage each month, and the mortgage company paid the real estate taxes. When Jones separated from his wife, he left the home, but failed to inform the State of his change of address. Jones continued to make the mortgage payments until the 30-year mortgage was paid in full in 1997, but neither Jones nor his wife paid real estate taxes after that date. The State commenced foreclosure proceedings, and attempted to notify Jones by mailing a certified letter to him at the address of record. The letter informed Jones of his right of redemption, and explained that the house would be sold if Jones failed to exercise that right within 2 years. The post office returned the unopened certified letter to the State marked 'unclaimed.' Two years later, shortly before selling the property to a private bidder, the state once again attempted to notify Jones of the foreclosure. In addition to posting a 'notice of public sale' in the newspaper, the State mailed a second certified letter to Jones at the property address. Again, the letter was returned marked 'unclaimed.' The state took no additional steps to notify Jones of the sale.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?