The Certified Mail Bounced Back. Hollis Took the Property Anyway.
How hard must a municipality try to find a taxpayer before taking the taxpayer’s property for unpaid taxes? In New Hampshire, the answer depends on what the town knows before it acts - especially when certified mail comes back undelivered.
Background
A taxpayer owned property in Hollis at least since 2008. That year, she notified the town of her travels abroad, gave the town her email address, and authorized two representatives, Mark and Raymond, to handle the property's taxes.
She provided the town with Mark's Manchester address. The town's records also listed a California address. In a 2017 email, she asked the town to send future notices to a Maine address.
Between 2016 and 2018, the town mailed several certified letters about the unpaid taxes, each directed to one or more of those addresses. Mark signed for one - a notice of an impending tax deed for the 2013 taxes. Most of the others returned undeliverable, including one warning of an impending tax lien for the 2016 taxes.
The town also emailed the taxpayer four times. In a May 2017 exchange, the tax collector urged prompt payment to avoid a tax deed. The taxpayer paid the taxes for 2013 through 2015 but decided against paying the 2016 taxes.
In March 2019, the town mailed certified notices of an impending tax deed for the 2016 taxes to the Manchester and Maine addresses. Both returned undeliverable.
In April 2019, the tax collector executed the deed for the 2016 taxes, conveying the property to the town.
A week later, the town sent notice of the taking by regular mail forming the taxpayer she could repurchase the property at any time through April 18, 2022.
In April 2022, shortly before the taxpayer's three-year repurchase right expired, the town emailed her and mailed certified notices to both addresses, one of which Mark signed for.
In April 2024, the town agreed to sell the property to a third party and refused the taxpayer's offer to pay everything she owed. She sued, alleging that the town's notice of the 2016 tax lien and the 2016 tax deed violated her federal due process rights. The taxpayer also alleged that notice of the 2018 tax lien was deficient.
The superior court sided with the town
In ruling for the town, the superior court treated the town’s notice efforts as reasonable in light of the taxpayer’s long-running delinquency, her prior communications with the town, and the town’s use of the addresses available in its records. It also concluded that due process did not require the town to take additional steps after the certified mail came back undeliverable.
The taxpayer appealed.
The Supreme Court asked what Hollis knew before each notice step
On the tax deed, the Court applied Jones v. Flowers, a decision of the United State Supreme Court, which requires the government to take additional, reasonable steps when it learns that mailed notice of an impending taking has failed. The town knew its certified-mail notice of the impending tax deed had returned undeliverable, yet it executed the deed without trying anything more.
Executing the deed stripped the taxpayer of ownership, so due process demanded notice first. The town's later letters and 2022 email came too late, following the deprivation instead of preceding it. Her general awareness of her delinquency did not excuse the town: common knowledge that taxes can lead to a taking does not replace the duty to give notice.
The Court also ruled for the taxpayer on the 2016 tax lien notice. The town sent that notice only to the California address, even though mail there had repeatedly failed and the town had better ways to reach her.
The 2018 tax lien came out differently. The town sent those notices to both the Manchester address, where notices had arrived before, and the Maine address the taxpayer had requested. That choice was reasonably calculated to inform her, and the letters' return did not make the attempt inadequate.
The Court reversed the superior court on the 2016 tax deed and the 2016 tax lien, and affirmed on the 2018 tax lien.
Key takeaway
A town's notice duty changes when it learns, before a tax lien or deed, that its chosen method of notice has failed and reasonable alternatives remain available. Later notice during a repurchase window, or the owner's general awareness of unpaid taxes, will not cure a pre-deprivation notice the town already knew had failed.
Manutsom v. Town of Hollis, 2026 N.H. 27
For assistance with tax deeds, tax abatements, real estate and civil litigation, please contact Alfano Law at (603) 856-8411 or by filling out our Contact Form. The firm offers free or low-cost initial consultations for most matters.