Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006)
Primary Holding
Before a state can take property and sell it for unpaid taxes, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the government to take additional reasonable steps to provide notice when a mailed notice is returned undelivered.
In the case of Jones v. Flowers, the Supreme Court decided that the government must do more to notify property owners about unpaid taxes if their mailed notices come back undelivered. This matters because it helps protect consumers from losing their homes or property without being properly informed. If you ever find yourself in a situation where the government is trying to sell your property for unpaid taxes, this case means they have to make extra efforts to reach you first, ensuring you have a fair chance to respond.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
Jones owned but did not occupy a house on which he failed to pay property taxes. The state of Arkansas sent two certified letters to that address, which contained notice that it would put the house up for sale if Jones continued to withhold payment of taxes. They were returned to the state as undelivered because they required a signature, and the state was aware that they were not delivered. However, the state eventually put the house up for sale, shortly after publishing a notice. After Flowers bought the house, Jones brought an action to restore his ownership on the grounds that he had not received proper notice of the tax sale. The defendants sought summary judgment because they argued that actual notice was not required. The state courts agreed.
Whether, when notice of a tax sale is mailed to the owner and returned undelivered, the government must take additional reasonable steps to provide notice before taking the owner’s property, in order to satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The judgment is reversed.
The dissent argued that the validity of the notice is determined at the time that the notice is sent, but this would lead to harsh outcomes in situations such as these, when an integral part of an individual's life is affected.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- January 17, 2006
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Roberts
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005)
Consumer LostThe national interest in providing a federal forum for federal tax litigation is sufficiently substantial to support the exercise of federal question jurisdiction over a state action involving a disputed issue of federal title law, even in the absence of a federal cause of action.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)
Consumer LostAn individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order does not have a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order, even when there is probable cause to believe it has been violated.
Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006)
Consumer LostThe burden of proof for a defense of duress in a criminal trial lies with the defendant to establish the defense by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than requiring the government to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (2005)
Consumer LostThe period for the 1-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. §2255 begins when a petitioner receives notice of the order vacating a prior conviction used to enhance their federal sentence, provided that the petitioner has pursued the vacatur with due diligence in state court.