Background
Blake Warner deposited $3,600 in a Florida court registry during an eviction case. After Warner and his landlord orally agreed that Warner could reclaim the money, the eviction case was dismissed for lack of prosecution, but the funds remained in the registry.
The Hillsborough County Clerk later mailed notice to an outdated address despite having received numerous returned letters for that address. The Clerk also published notice in La Gaceta, a predominantly Spanish-language newspaper reaching less than 0.2 percent of the county, and ultimately transferred the money to the county’s fine and forfeiture fund under Florida Statute § 116.21. The district court entered summary judgment for the Clerk, reasoning that publication supplied adequate notice and that the transfer was not an unconstitutional taking.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the rejection of Warner’s facial due-process challenge to § 116.21. Because the statute can constitutionally operate when an owner is unknown or unreachable, Warner could not establish that it is invalid in every application.
The court reversed on Warner’s as-applied due-process claim. Publication was inadequate because the Clerk could readily access Warner’s valid email address, telephone number, and another mailing address through the state e-filing system. The mailed notice was also deficient because it went to a demonstrably obsolete address and incorrectly indicated that the funds would remain reclaimable through the state’s unclaimed-property program rather than be permanently forfeited to the county.
The majority further held that the Clerk effected an unconstitutional taking by appropriating Warner’s property for county use without just compensation. On this record, the Clerk could not infer abandonment solely from Warner’s failure to respond to notices he never received. Judge Luck concurred in the due-process rulings but dissented from the takings holding. The court remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A publication-only notice statute is not facially unconstitutional when it can validly apply to property whose owner is unknown or unreachable.
- When direct contact information is readily available, publication and repeated mailing to a known invalid address are not reasonably calculated to provide notice.
- The government cannot establish abandonment solely from an owner’s failure to respond to constitutionally inadequate notices and then appropriate the property without compensation.
Why It Matters
The decision requires clerks administering discretionary unclaimed-funds procedures to use practical, readily available methods of contacting known owners. Technical compliance with a publication statute will not necessarily satisfy procedural due process.
The divided takings ruling also links constitutionally adequate notice to whether property may validly be treated as abandoned. Governments risk takings liability when they permanently appropriate unclaimed funds based only on nonresponse to defective notice.