Jones v. Flowers facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Jones v. Flowers |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued January 17, 2006 Decided April 26, 2006 |
|
| Full case name | Gary Kent Jones v. Linda K. Flowers and Mark Wilcox, Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands |
| Docket nos. | 04-1477 |
| Citations | 547 U.S. 220 (more)
126 S. Ct. 1708; 164 L. Ed. 2d 415; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 3451; 74 U.S.L.W. 4200 (2006)
|
| Prior history | Summary judgment granted to defendants, No. CIV2003-8565, Pulaski County Circuit Court; affirmed, 359 Ark. 443, 198 S.W.3d 520, 2004 Ark. LEXIS 722, No. 04-449, (Ark 2004); cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 35 (2005). |
| Subsequent history | 2008 Ark. LEXIS 267 (Apr. 17, 2008) (regarding attorney's fees) |
| Holding | |
| When the notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process requires the State to take additional reasonable steps to contact the property owner before it can sell his property. Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Dissent | Thomas, joined by Scalia, Kennedy |
| Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Jones v. Flowers was an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2006. It was about how states must tell property owners before selling their land to pay off unpaid taxes. The Court ruled that if a state sends a notice by mail and it comes back "unclaimed," the state must try other ways to reach the owner before selling the property.
The Court decided this case with a 5-3 vote. Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the main opinion. This was his first opinion that some justices disagreed with. The ruling built on an earlier case, Dusenbery v. United States, but added a new rule: if the government knows its first attempt to give notice failed, it must do more.
Understanding the Case: Jones v. Flowers
This section explains the background of the Jones v. Flowers case. It covers why Gary Jones's property was at risk and how the state tried to tell him about it.
Unpaid Taxes and Property Sale
In 1967, Gary Jones bought a house in Little Rock, Arkansas. He lived there with his wife. After they separated in 1993, Jones moved out, but his wife stayed in the house.
For 30 years, Jones paid his mortgage, and the mortgage company paid his property taxes. But after he paid off his mortgage in 1997, his wife stopped paying the taxes. This meant the property taxes were not paid.
Attempts to Notify the Owner
In April 2000, Mark Wilcox, who was in charge of state lands in Arkansas, tried to tell Jones about the unpaid taxes. He sent a certified letter to Jones at the house. The letter explained that if Jones didn't pay the taxes, his house could be sold in two years.
However, no one was home to sign for the letter. No one picked it up from the post office either. So, the post office sent the unopened letter back to the state, marked "unclaimed."
Two years later, the state announced the public sale of the property in a newspaper. But no one bought the house at the auction. This allowed the state to sell it privately.
Linda Flowers then offered to buy the house. The state sent another certified letter to Jones at the house. This letter also tried to tell him his house would be sold if he didn't pay his taxes. Just like the first letter, this one was also returned "unclaimed."
Flowers bought the house for much less than it was worth. After 30 days, a notice was delivered to the house. Jones's daughter, who was living there, saw the notice. She then told her father about the unpaid taxes and the sale.
Court Cases in Arkansas
Jones then sued the state and Linda Flowers. He said that the state didn't properly tell him about the tax sale. He felt his property was taken without proper due process (fair legal steps).
The local court decided in favor of the state and Flowers. They said the two unclaimed letters were enough. Jones appealed this decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court. That court agreed with the lower court. They said that the law doesn't always require someone to actually receive the notice. Sending it by certified mail was considered enough.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case. They wanted to settle disagreements among different courts about what states must do when a tax sale notice is returned.
In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the Arkansas Supreme Court's ruling. They said that the state's sale of Jones's property was not fair. The Court ruled that "when mailed notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, the State must take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling his property, if it is practicable to do so."
Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed. He wrote that the state had already done enough based on past court decisions.
Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that states have "extraordinary power" when they sell someone's property. He said it's fair to ask the state to do "a bit more" when a notice letter comes back unclaimed. Even though sending certified mail is usually a good way to give notice, the state learned that this method failed.
Roberts explained that if someone truly wanted to tell Jones about the danger of losing his house, they would do more. He gave an example: if a mail carrier dropped letters down a storm drain, no one would just "shrug his shoulders." They would send new letters. Not following up when a letter is returned unclaimed is also unreasonable.
What is "Reasonably Calculated" Notice?
The Fourteenth Amendment says that a state must give a property owner notice and a chance to be heard before taking their property. The Court had previously said that the government only needs to try to give notice in a way that is "reasonably calculated" to inform people. It doesn't mean the person has to actually receive the notice.
However, in previous cases, the government didn't know that its notice attempts had failed. In this case, the state knew the letter was unclaimed. This "new wrinkle" meant the state had to do more. Many other courts and states also require more action when a notice fails.
The Court said that the way notice is given "must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt." This means the state should act like it really wants to tell the person. Losing a home is a very serious matter, so the state must be very careful.
What More Could the State Have Done?
The Court looked at what other reasonable steps Arkansas could have taken. If there were no other options, the state wouldn't be at fault. But the Court found there were other easy things to do.
- Resend by regular mail: This would allow the letter to be left without a signature. It could also be forwarded if Jones had moved.
- Post a notice: The state could have put a notice on the front door of the house. The person living there would likely see it and tell the owner. Jones actually found out about the sale from his daughter, who lived in the house.
- Address mail to "occupant": This would also likely reach the person living in the house.
The state argued these steps would be too much work. But the Court pointed out that the state already spent time and money on newspaper ads, auctions, and private sales. Also, Arkansas law already requires personal service for homestead owners if certified mail fails. The cost of notice is usually paid by the taxpayer or the buyer.
The Court also disagreed with the idea that states would stop using certified mail. Certified mail creates a record that notice was sent. This protects the state from claims that notice was never received. But this protection also means the state learns when notice has not been received. The state cannot ignore this information.
The state also argued that Jones should have kept his address updated. The Court agreed Jones should have been more careful. But it said this doesn't mean he loses his right to proper notice.
The Court made it clear it wasn't telling Arkansas exactly what to do. It was just saying that "additional reasonable steps were available" before taking Jones's property.
Justice Thomas's Dissent
Justice Thomas disagreed with the majority. He believed that the state's attempts to notify Jones were enough. He said that property ownership shouldn't depend on small details caused by the owner's own failure to protect their property.
Thomas argued that the state only needed to use a method "reasonably calculated" to inform Jones. He said this should be judged at the time the notice was sent, not after the state learned it failed. He felt the majority's suggested methods were based on what was known later, not at the time of sending.
He also thought that if the state had to do more every time a notice failed, it would be like requiring "something close to actual notice." This would be too much for the state. Thomas pointed out that Arkansas deals with thousands of properties with unpaid taxes each year. He believed the system requiring owners to keep their address updated was fair.
Impact of the Case
The Jones v. Flowers case was seen as an example of an individual standing up against the government. It also showed how the new Roberts Court might make decisions. Chief Justice Roberts's decision went against the views of some other conservative justices. This was his first majority opinion that caused other justices to write dissenting opinions.
