Toyota Motor Credit Corporation v. State of Tennessee Department of Safety11/7/2003
taking property without due process of law. State v. AAA Aaron's Action Agency Bail Bonds, Inc., 993 S.W.2d 81, 85 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (citing Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 105 S. Ct. 1487, 1493, 84 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1985)). At a minimum, due process requires that parties having an interest in property be given adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Redd v. Tennessee Dep't of Safety, 895 S.W.2d 332, 334 (Tenn. 1995); Cooper v. Williamson County Bd. of Educ., 803 S.W.2d 200, 202 (Tenn. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 916, 111 S. Ct. 2013, 114 L. Ed. 2d 100 (1991). To satisfy due process, the notice given must be one that is "`reasonably calculated under all the circumstances,'" to apprise interested parties of the forfeiture proceedings. McClellan v. Bd. of Regents of State University, 921 S.W.2d 684, 688 (Tenn. 1996) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S. Ct. 652, 657, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950)). Thus, "the means employed should equal or exceed that which one desirous of actually informing the opposite party would employ." AAA Aaron's Action Agency, 993 S.W.2d at 86 (citing Turk v. Franklin Special School Dist., 640 S.W.2d 218, 220 (Tenn. 1982)).
When the State either knows or could easily ascertain the identity of a party with an interest in the proceedings, it must satisfy a more stringent notice standard, which at a minimum requires notification by mail. See Mullane, 339 U.S. at 317-18, 70 S. Ct. at 658-59; Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 212-13, 83 S. Ct. 279, 282, 9 L. Ed. 2d 255 (1962); Baggett v. Baggett, 541 S.W.2d 407, 410 (Tenn. 1976); Love v. First Nat'l Bank of Clarksville, 646 S.W.2d 163, 165 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982). The Department correctly notes that due process may be satisfied even if the potential claimant does not actually receive the notice. "An otherwise valid notice that has been mailed is effective even if the addressee has not actually received or read the notice. . . . Thus, notice by certified mail is sufficient even if the addressee fails or refuses to accept the notice." Helms v. Greene, No. 01A01-9505-CH-00194, 1997 WL 36846, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 1997) (citations omitted), aff'd on other grounds by Helms v. Tennessee Dep't of Safety, 987 S.W.2d 545 (Tenn. 1999). However, sending notice by mail to a party's last known address is not ordinarily sufficient when the State is aware that the address is no longer valid and could easily obtain the current address. Id. As the Helms court stated:
The reasonableness of the government's notification efforts depends on (1) its knowledge of the ownership of the property, (2) the means available to the government to ascertain the identity of persons who might claim an interest in the property, and (3) the practical difficulty of giving notice in a way that will actually inform the affected persons of the pending proceeding.
Id. at *2 (citing Brown v. Tennessee Dep't of Safety, No. 01-A-01-9102-CH00043, 1992 WL 63444, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 1992)).
We agree with the trial court that the Department's notice was insufficient to satisfy due process under the facts and circumstances of this case. As the trial court observed, the Department knew the address on the vehicle's certificate of title and registration was invalid when the certified letter was returned marked by the Postal Service as "Not Deliverable as Addressed Unable to Forward." Since the Department was also aware that the vehicle's owner was a corporation that leased vehicles to individuals, it had a readily available means of seeking the correct address through the Secretary of State's Office, which would have required
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|