Background
The Farley Road Realty Trust, through its trustee Wisarat Manutsom, owned a vacant property in Hollis, New Hampshire. Beginning around 2008, the plaintiff notified the Town of various contact addresses and authorized agents to act on the Trust’s behalf regarding property taxes. Over the following decade, the Trust fell behind on taxes for multiple years, and the Town made numerous attempts to provide notice by certified mail to the addresses on file — with mixed results. In a notable 2017 email exchange, the Town’s tax collector warned the plaintiff to pay promptly “to avoid the town pursuing a tax deed,” but the plaintiff deliberately chose not to pay the 2016 taxes, having paid arrears for 2013–2015.
In March 2019, the Town mailed certified notices of both an impending 2018 tax lien and an impending tax deed for the delinquent 2016 taxes to the plaintiff’s Manchester and Maine addresses. All were returned undeliverable. In April 2019, without taking any further steps to reach the plaintiff, the Town’s tax collector executed a deed conveying the Property to the Town. Post-deed notices were eventually sent by regular mail and, in April 2022, by certified mail — but by then the plaintiff faced a 10% penalty on the property’s value, in addition to back taxes, to repurchase it. The plaintiff sued, alleging that the Town’s notices of the 2016 and 2018 tax liens and the 2016 tax deed violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the Town on all claims, and the plaintiff appealed.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court considered three discrete notice events: (1) the 2016 tax lien notice, (2) the 2018 tax lien notice, and (3) the tax deed notice for the 2016 delinquency.
The Court’s Holding
The court reversed summary judgment on both the tax deed notice and the 2016 tax lien notice, and affirmed summary judgment on the 2018 tax lien notice. On the tax deed, the court held that under Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006), the Fourteenth Amendment required the Town to take additional reasonable steps — such as sending a follow-up email or regular mail — after its certified notices of the impending deed were returned undeliverable, and before it executed the deed. Because the Town took no such steps prior to deeding the property, its notice was constitutionally deficient. The court rejected the Town’s argument that post-deed correspondence (including notices sent during the plaintiff’s three-year repurchase window) could cure the pre-taking notice failure, reasoning that deprivation of ownership occurred at the moment the deed was executed.
On the 2016 tax lien, the court held the Town’s notice inadequate because it mailed only to the California address — to which all prior deliveries had failed — despite having alternative means of contact, including Mark Copp’s Manchester address and the plaintiff’s email address. On the 2018 tax lien, however, the court affirmed the Town’s notice as constitutionally sufficient. The Town had mailed to both the Manchester address (where prior notices had been signed for) and the Maine address (which the plaintiff had specifically requested), making the attempt “reasonably calculated” to provide notice under Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950). The case was remanded for the trial court to determine an appropriate remedy on the reversed claims.
Key Takeaways
- When certified mail notices of an impending tax deed are returned undeliverable, the government must take additional reasonable steps — such as follow-up regular mail, email if available, or posting on the property — before executing the deed; doing nothing violates the Fourteenth Amendment under Jones v. Flowers.
- Notice sent only after a tax deed is executed cannot satisfy the constitutional requirement of pre-taking notice, even if the property owner still holds a redemption or repurchase right, because ownership is divested at the moment the deed is recorded.
- A tax lien notice mailed exclusively to an address from which all prior deliveries had failed is not “reasonably calculated” to provide notice when alternative reliable contacts — such as an agent’s address or an email address on file — were available.
- A property owner’s general awareness that unpaid taxes may result in a taking, or informal email warnings from a tax collector, do not excuse the government from meeting its constitutional notice obligations before taking the property.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that municipal tax collectors in New Hampshire — and more broadly — cannot treat a returned certified letter as the end of their due process obligations when a taking is imminent. Where the government has additional reliable contact information on file, it must use it. The ruling makes clear that the constitutional clock runs to the moment of deprivation (deed execution), not to the expiration of any subsequent redemption window, and that added financial burdens like the 10% repurchase penalty underscore why post-taking notice cannot substitute for pre-taking notice.
For property owners, the decision affirms that due process protections attach even when taxes go unpaid and even when the owner has been generally warned of consequences, so long as specific pre-taking notice was inadequate. For municipalities, it signals that maintaining accurate, multi-channel contact records and using all available means when initial notice fails is not merely best practice — it is a constitutional requirement.