WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ruled Wednesday that the government must make extra efforts to notify a homeowner before it sells off his property for unpaid taxes.
The Constitution says the state may not take away a person's property "without due process of law," and Roberts said that meant officials "must take additional reasonable steps" to contact an owner before taking his property.
The ruling in an Arkansas dispute applies to all levels of government, from the Internal Revenue Service to local tax collectors.
The chief justice split with the court's most conservative justices and with Bush administration lawyers, who said sending a letter was all that was required of the government, even if it wasn't delivered.
The 5-3 decision is a victory for an Arkansas man who lost his house several years after he had paid off the mortgage. When his former wife failed to pay the property taxes, the state moved to seize and sell the house.
Officials made no effort to contact the homeowner other than to send a certified letter that was returned undelivered.
In response to the news that the letter was returned, "the state did nothing," Roberts said. They did not call the house, post a notice on the property or send a person to speak to the occupants, he said. They simply put a notice in the local newspaper and then sold the house at auction -- for one-fourth of its value.
Gary Jones, the homeowner, lived in a Little Rock, Ark., apartment and first learned of the unpaid taxes and the sale of his house when his daughter called to say she was being evicted. Jones sued the state, but lost in the Arkansas courts. He then appealed his case to the Supreme Court, contending the state's action was unconstitutional.
Roberts joined with the court's four liberal justices in voting to reverse the state's decision.
"Mr. Jones should have been more diligent with respect to his property -- no question," the chief justice said. "But before forcing a citizen to satisfy his debt by forfeiting his property, due process requires the government to provide adequate notice of the impending taking.
"There is no reason to suppose that the state will ever be less than fully zealous in its efforts to secure the tax revenue it needs," he said. "The same cannot be said for the state's efforts to ensure that its citizens received proper notice before the state takes action against them. In this case, the state is exerting extraordinary power against a property owner -- taking and selling a house he owns. It is not too much to insist that the state do a bit more to attempt to let him know about it."
