Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 9-832 / 08-1418 Filed December 17, 2009 KATHRYN E. NICHOLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. HF05, TRISTAN FRANK, Individually and as Agent for HF05, JOHN DAVIS, Individually and as Partner in HF05 and FRANK ROTTINGHAUS, as Floyd County Treasurer, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Colleen D. Weiland, Judge.

A one-time property owner appeals the district court`s decision to grant a tax deed holder`s motion for summary judgment, contending that the statute prescribing the method of notice to a property owner of his or her right to redeem the property is unconstitutional. AFFIRMED.

Russell Schroeder of Schroeder Law Office, Charles City, for appellant. Michael Ensley of Hanson, Bjork, and Russell, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellees Tristan Frank, HF05, and John Davis. Jesse Marzen, Floyd County Attorney, Charles City, for appellee Frank Rottinghaus.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Danilson, JJ.

2 VAITHESWARAN, J. We must decide whether the manner of providing notice of redemption under Iowa Code section 447.9 (2007) comports with due process. I. Background Facts and Proceedings

A Floyd County parcel of real estate owned by Kathryn Nicholson was sold at a tax sale to an entity known as HF05. HF05 subsequently notified

Nicholson of her right to redeem the property within ninety days. The notice was sent by certified and regular mail as prescribed by Iowa Code section 447.9. The certified mail was returned to HF05 as undelivered. Nicholson attested that she did not receive either certified mail or regular mail from HF05, or its agents. The agent for HF05 stated his belief that Nicholson was aware of the matter as she asked about redemption status at the treasurer`s office prior to the redemption date and failed to ever redeem. After the ninety-day period expired, the Floyd County Treasurer issued HF05 a tax deed. Nicholson sued HF05 and others, alleging she did not receive actual notice of her right of redemption. She further alleged that, to the extent section 447.9 does not require actual delivery of notice, it is unc onstitutional. Nicholson and HF05 filed motions for summary judgment. denied Nicholson`s motion, stating: HF05 provided proper and sufficient notice as required by Iowa Code. The Iowa Code

Download KATHRYN E. NICHOLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. HF05, TRISTAN FRANK, Individually

Iowa Law