Coleman v. Scheve

• Decision Date: 08 December 1976
• Docket Number: No. 9921.,9921.
• Citation: Coleman v. Scheve, 367 A.2d 135 (D.C. 1976)
• Parties: Willie T. COLEMAN and Brittannia Wood, Appellants, v. Theodore J. SCHEVE et al., Appellees.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

367 A.2d 135

Willie T. COLEMAN and Brittannia Wood, Appellants, v. Theodore J. SCHEVE et al., Appellees.

No. 9921.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued May 13, 1978.

Decided December 8, 1976.

Rehearing and Rehearing en Banc Denied Mar. 8, 1977.

Quentin W. Banks, Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Kurt Berlin, Washington, D. C., for appellees Scheve. Dennis M. McHugh, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., with whom Louis P. Robbins, Acting Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., at the time the brief was filed, and Henry E. Wixon, [PA]Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee Walter E. Washington.

Before KERN, HARRIS and MACK, Associate Judges.

HARRIS, Associate Judge:

This is an appeal from the trial court's order refusing to set aside a tax deed issued by appellee, the Mayor-Commissioner, to appellees Theodore and Geraldine Scheve. The property at issue had been owned by appellants (a mother and her daughter) since 1951, and was their family residence. The property was sold to satisfy delinquent real estate taxes. Appellants failed to redeem the property within the allowable two-year time period, and thereby forfeited ownership. They contend that the notification procedure followed by the District of Columbia concerning the tax sale and the expiration of the redemption period did not conform to the principles of due process, even though they concede that statutory requirements were satisfied. While we recognize appellants' hardship, we reject their arguments as being contrary to established law in this jurisdiction and unsupported by decisions of the Supreme Court.

For many years prior to 1971, real property on which District of Columbia taxes were in arrears was sold in January. Thus, a property owner would have until the month of January, two years after the property had been sold for nonpayment of taxes, within which to redeem it. D.C. Code 1973, § 47-1003. Over the years, appellants' frequent tax delinquency had resulted in the sale of their property on 11 prior occasions. In each of those instances, appellants redeemed their property by paying the taxes due just as the two-year redemption period was about to expire.

In May of 1971, pursuant to D.C.Code 1973, § 47-1001, the District of Columbia City Council changed the date for the sale of real property on which fiscal year 1971 taxes were in arrears to October 26, 1971. As a result of this change, appellants' property was sold in October of 1971. When Mrs. Coleman, as had been her practice, attempted to redeem the property in January of 1974, the Assessment Services Division informed her that the time within which she legally could have done so had expired in October of 1973.

The procedure followed by the District tax officials in giving notice of pending tax sales was outlined at trial by a representative of the assessor's office. According to his undisputed testimony, appellants were sent a tax assessment in September 1970 which set forth the real property taxes owed for 1971 and warned of the consequences for nonpayment thereof. A similar notification was sent in February or March of 1971. In May or June of 1971, a third notice, reflecting the fact that the taxes were delinquent, was sent to appellants. In September 1971, the District mailed appellants a "tax sale notice", advising them that if their taxes remained in arrears, their property would be sold in October 1971. Finally, the District's records indicate that a "courtesy" letter (not required by statute) was sent to Mrs. Coleman informing her of the October 1973 expiration date of the two-year redemption period.¹

Appellants do not contend that they were unaware that their property taxes were owing. Mrs. Coleman acknowledged having received notice that their 1971 taxes were delinquent, both through the mail and in person at the time she visited the Office of the Assessor to pay their 1970 real estate taxes. Appellants also knew that the continuance of such delinquency would result in the sale of their property. As noted, appellants' failure to meet their tax obligations on time had resulted in the sale of their home on 11 previous occasions. Mrs. Coleman testified that she was familiar with the newspaper advertisement of tax sales, and had seen such publications often in the past, but that she did not see the notices for 1971.

It is undisputed that the District of Columbia properly advertised the October 1971 tax sale by newspaper publication in compliance with the statutory requirements of D.C.Code 1973, § 47-1001, requirements which we construe stringently in order to protect the constitutional rights of property owners.² Potomac Building Corp. v. Karkenny, D.C.App., 364 A.2d 809, 812 (1976). Appellants seem to argue that notice by publication, even though accompanied by notice through the mail, is per se deficient to permit divesting an individual of property consistent with due process of law. However, the question of whether the demands of due process have been satisfied in a given case cannot be answered by the mere recitation of concern as to the adequacy of notice by publication. While reasonable notice is, of course, constitutionally required, what constitutes such notice must be determined by the nature of the proceedings and all other attendant circumstances. See Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 115, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L. Ed.2d 178 (1956); Dodson v. Scheve, D. C.App., 339 A.2d 39, 40 (1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 909, 96 S.Ct. 1103, 47 L.Ed.2d 312 (1976).

The existence of procedures for the assessment of taxes, for the collection of taxes, and for the imposition of penalties for nonpayment of taxes is a matter of common knowledge. Such procedures are particularly familiar to property owners, who are responsible for meeting annual — and often more frequent — tax obligations. In light of these facts, courts have found that taxation proceedings may be accompanied by less stringent notification provisions than may be required for other proceedings affecting property interests. See, e. g., City of Auburn v. Mandarelli, 320 A.2d 22, 29 (Me.), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial fed. question, 419 U. S. 810, 95 S.Ct. 25, 42 L.Ed.2d 37 (1974); Botens v. Aronauer, 32 N.Y.2d 243, 248-49, 344 N.Y.S.2d 892, 895, 298 N.E.2d 73, 74-75, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial fed. question, 414 U.S. 1059, 94 S.Ct. 562, 38 L.Ed.2d 464 (1973).³ Cf. Dodson v. Scheve, supra, 339 A.2d at 40 n. 3. In this case, in addition to the notice provided in accordance with the tax statutes and by widespread public familiarity with the consequences of tax delinquency, the District of Columbia utilized a notice procedure which was "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." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950).

Appellants had actual knowledge of (1) the tax debt, (2) the manner in which tax sales are announced, (3) the fact that a sale had occurred, and (4) the existence of the two-year redemption period. These circumstances readily distinguish this case from those in which the Supreme Court has found a deprivation of due process. Our dissenting colleague cites inapposite cases which dealt with indirect notice to individuals who had little or no reason to expect that their property interests were being affected and who did not, therefore, have adequate opportunity to protect themselves from forfeiture. The same hardly may be said in the case of appellants, in view of their extensive experience with tax sales and redemptions. The two-year redemption period following the sale provided appellants with ample opportunity to protect their property interests, particularly in light of Mrs. Coleman's personal visits to the assessor's office before the redemption period had expired.

The only factor in this case which differentiates it from other cases in which we consistently have rejected a due process challenge to the tax sale notice procedure is the change in the date of the sale and appellants' erroneous reliance on a redemption period which had been legislatively modified. This factor was not present in Dodson v. Scheve, supra, and Moore v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 332 A.2d 749 (1975). However, this circumstance does not rise to the level of a due process deprivation, particularly in light of the District's efforts to acquaint appellants with the expiring redemption period. Cf. Nelson v. City of New York, 352 U.S. 103, 109-09, 77 S.Ct. 195, 1 L.Ed.2d 171 (1956). Appellants can claim no vested right to a specific sale date, nor even to a constant length of the redemption period. As Justice (later Chief Justice) Stone wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court:

Such [land taxation and condemnation] statutes are universally in force and are general in their application, facts of which the land owner must take account in providing for the management of his property and safeguarding his interest in it. Owners of real estate may so order their affairs that they may be informed of tax or condemnation proceedings of which there is published notice, and the law may be framed in recognition of that fact. In consequence, it has been uniformly held that statutes providing for taxation or condemnation of land may adopt a procedure summary in character, and that notice of such proceedings may be indirect, provided only that the period of notice of the initiation of proceedings and the method of giving it are reasonably adapted to the nature of the proceedings and their subject matter and afford to the property owner reasonable opportunity at some stage of the proceedings to protect his property from an arbitrary or unjust appropriation. [North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman, 268 U.S. 276, 283, 45 S.Ct. 491, 494, 69 L.Ed. 953 (1925). Cf. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank...