 |
 |
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
the conduct leading to the forfeiture and whose only fault lay in failing to maintain a listing of its current address. Furthermore, in at least three of the cases cited, there is the suggestion that the party's failure to receive notice sent by certified mail resulted from its deliberate attempt to avoid notice. See Anderson, 839 P.2d at 823, 826 (observing that Anderson failed to claim his certified letter and concluding that "the agency also has a significant interest in ensuring that parties do not delay or subvert the administrative process by willfully evading notice"); Baughman 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 500 (noting Baughman's conflicting claims that he did not receive the notice sent by certified mail because "`the girl picking up the mail at that time didn't understand the notices,'" and that he did not pick up the certified letter because he had been receiving "harassing type mail from a medical manufacturer"); Evans, 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 460 (noting that person residing at Evans' place of business received notice but allegedly failed to give it to Evans).
Adequate notice is an essential element of due process, and the burden is on the State to satisfy due process. Redd v. Tennessee Dep't of Safety, 895 S.W.2d 332, 335 (Tenn. 1995) (citing Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444, 449, 102 S. Ct. 1874, 1877-78, 72 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1982)). "Notice must be given in a manner reasonably calculated to notify all interested parties of the pending forfeiture of the property in order to afford the opportunity to object to the State's taking." Id. at 334-35. If, as here, the State both knows the name of the property owner and that the address to which it has sent notice is no longer valid, due process requires that it make an effort to ascertain and notify the property owner at a valid address. No such effort was made in this case, despite the fact that TMCC's address was reasonably ascertainable through a telephone call to the Secretary of State's Office or a search of its web site. Because the Department failed to exert the minimal effort required to ascertain TMCC's correct address, TMCC was deprived of the opportunity to be present at a hearing to assert its claim to the vehicle. Therefore, we conclude the trial court was correct in finding that the notice provided failed to satisfy due process and in remanding the case to the Commissioner of Safety to conduct a hearing on TMCC's claim to the vehicle.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the Department and its surety, for which execution may issue, if necessary.
|