Constitutional & Property Law—Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause & Notice to Be Heard— It Felt So Right but Was All So Wrong: United States Supreme Court Rules Arkansas\u27s Tax-Foreclosure Notice Procedure Fails to Satisfy Due Process Clause When Certified Mail Notice Returns Unclaimed. Jones v. Flowers, 126 S. Ct. 1708 (2006).

Local governments in the United States still rely on real property taxation as a dominant source of revenue. Rather than establish a clear, uniform model of tax collection, the federal government allows each state to develop its own form of governance, resulting in over 150 different tax collection systems within the United States. Unfortunately, not all property taxes are paid, and the county government must seize the delinquent taxpayer\u27s property in order to fulfill the taxpayer\u27s obligation. The Constitution requires the government to give the delinquent taxpayer notice of the pending action. Although recently it appears that the Supreme Court has been increasing the due process requirements for notice before a tax foreclosure sale, the Court has never clearly stated a due process standard for what constitutes constitutionally adequate notice. One of the Court\u27s most recent attempts to provide guidelines for sufficient notice before a tax foreclosure proceeding was Jones v. Flowers, in which the Court sought to answer the question whether due process requires a state to take additional reasonable steps to provide a property owner with notice of a tax sale when a certified mailing notice of the sale is returned with the state unclaimed. This note explores the historical development of the due process notice requirement for tax foreclosure procedures in the United States Supreme Court and Arkansas\u27s development of the notice requirement. Next, this note discusses the Jones case itself, in which in essence, the Court fails to consider the interests of the state in requiring additional steps after the post office returns attempted notice unclaimed without providing some indication of what direction the state should follow to meet the due process requirement. Finally, it analyzes some of the problems with the Jones case as well as some questions the Court leaves unanswered and outlines some of the immediate effects the Court\u27s decision has within the state of Arkansas