 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation v. State of Tennessee Department of Safety11/7/2003
cess. Id.; see also Warmath v. Payne, 3 S.W.3d 487, 492 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (concluding that constructive notice of tax sale was insufficient to satisfy due process where property owners' names and addresses were "reasonably ascertainable"); Freeman v. City of Kingsport, 926 S.W.2d 247, 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (noting that standard of providing notice in tax lien cases is one of "reasonableness," requiring "diligent inquiry to locate and notify the owners of the property of the suit to enforce the tax lien").
The western section of this court reached the same conclusion in a similar case involving the tax sale of real property in which certified letters containing notice of the tax sale were returned because the forwarding service had expired. In Romans v. Tatum, No. 01A01-9806-CV-00274, 1999 WL 415175, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 1999), two certified letters containing notice of a county's lawsuit for delinquent taxes and of the pending tax sale of the property were sent to the property owner at the last address on file with the tax assessor's office. Both certified letters were returned marked by the Postal Service, respectively, as "Forwarding Order Expired" and "Return to sender. Forwarding address expired." Id. Notice of the tax sale was then published in a county newspaper, followed by the sale of the property to an individual named Tatum. Id. at -2. The trial court overturned the tax sale based on the county's failure to provide actual notice to the property owner and the mortgagee bank, "despite the fact that their addresses were readily ascertainable." Id. at *2. The western section of this court affirmed, concluding that, given the fact that the names and addresses of both the owner and the bank were "reasonably ascertainable" through a title search of the property, "notice by publication did not satisfy constitutional due process requirements." Id. at *4. In so doing, the court rejected Tatum's argument that notice by publication was sufficient because the property owner and the bank had both failed to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 67-5-2502, which placed the burden on them to register their names and addresses with the property assessor. Id. at -4.
In addition to Beazley v. Armour, the Department cites cases from Utah, California, and North Carolina as support for its contention that TMCC's failure to comply with the law requiring it to maintain its current address on file with the Department relieved the Department of any "duty to hunt TMCC down." See Anderson v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Utah, 839 P.2d 822 (Utah 1992) (affirming public service commission's revocation of limousine service owner's certificate of operation for failure to maintain proof of insurance and rejecting owner's argument he was entitled to actual notice); Baughman v. Medical Bd. of California, 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 498 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (affirming medical board's revocation of physician's license to practice medicine following physician's failure to answer allegation of misconduct); Evans v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 460 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (affirming department of motor vehicle's revocation of automobile dismantler's license for violation of various state statutes and regulations governing such businesses); State v. Teasley, 176 S.E.2d 838 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970) (affirming defendant's conviction for speeding and driving while license suspended and concluding that defendant was given sufficient notice of suspension of license ). These cases, however, are readily distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. Unlike the situation here, none of the out-of-state cases cited by the Department involve the forfeiture of property belonging to an innocent party who was totally unaware of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|