US Supreme Court Case Study

825 Words4 Pages
U.S. Supreme Court MENNONITE BOARD OF MISSIONS v. ADAMS, 462 U.S. 791 (1983) Case Outline: Mennonite board of missions v.Adams Date Argued : March 30,1983 Decided : june 22,1983 Parties: Appellant : Mennonite Board of missions (MBM) Appellee : Adams Forum: U.S.Supreme court Appellant legal argument: He had not received the constitutionally adequate notice of the pending tax sale and of the opportunity to redeem the property following the tax sale. Appellee legal argument: Adams filed a suit in state court seeking quite title as no one redeems the property during the redemption period. FACTS • In March 1, 1973 Alfred Jean Moore executed a mortgage in favor of appellant MBM in Elkhart, Indiana that she had purchased…show more content…
• The county provided the notice as required under the statute to Moore, but MBM was not informed about the pending tax sale either by the county auditor or by Moore. • The tax sale will be followed by a 2 year redemption period during which the “owner, occupant, lien holder or other person who has interest in the property may redeem the property”. • In 1977, Elkhart County initiated proceedings to sell Moore’s property for non payment of taxes. The property was sold for $1,167.75 to appellee Richard Adams on August 8, 1977. Neither Moore nor MBM appeared at the sale or took steps there after to redeem the property. On August 16, 1979, MBM came to know about the tax sale. By then the redemption period had run and Moore still owed appellant $8,237.19. • In November 1979, Adams filed a suit in state court seeking to quiet title to the property, but in opposition to Adam’s motion MBM contended that it had not received enough adequate notice of the pending tax sale and the opportunity to redeem the…show more content…
So, it has to put some effort to c The United states supreme court explained that due process requires "notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to appraise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane vs Central Hannover Bank & Trust Co.,339 U.S.306,314(1950). The fourth circuit of appeals held that "Although a party required to provide notice need not undertake extra ordinary efforts to discover whereabouts and identity of mortgagee in the public records,it must use reasonably diligent efforts to discover addresses that are reasonably ascertainable."Plemon v.Gale,396F.3d 569,57(4th cir.2005). The court suggests that notice by mail to the mortgagee may ultimately relieve the county burden, if mortagagee arranges for payment of delinquent taxes prior to tax sale. The Courts suggests that use of less reliable forms of notice is not sufficient when an inexpensive and efficient means, such as mail, is available. Though there is no law regarding issuance of notice to the mortagagee before 1980 in this particular case, court held that it is the basic constitutional duty to issue notices to all the intreseted parties in the

More about US Supreme Court Case Study

Open Document