Covey v. Town of Somers
351 US 141, 100 L. Ed. 2d 1021, 1956 U.S. LEXIS 1005 (1956)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a municipality knows a property owner is mentally incompetent and without the protection of a guardian, providing notice of foreclosure solely by mail, posting, and publication does not satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Nora Brainard, a long-time resident of the Town of Somers, owned several parcels of real property.
- For over 15 years, town officials knew Brainard was mentally incompetent, unable to manage her affairs, and could not understand the meaning of legal notices served upon her.
- Brainard lived alone and had no relatives or other individuals in the state to act on her behalf or assist her.
- She became delinquent on taxes for one of her properties, amounting to approximately $480.
- The Town of Somers initiated a statutory foreclosure proceeding against Brainard's property.
- No committee or guardian was appointed for Brainard until after the town had obtained a judgment of foreclosure and a deed to her property.
- After foreclosure, the town offered the property for sale for a minimum bid of $6,500.
- Brainard's newly appointed Committee, appellant Covey, offered to pay the town the full amount due on the property in exchange for its return, but the town refused.
Procedural Posture:
- The Town of Somers (appellee) instituted an in rem tax foreclosure proceeding in the County Court of Westchester County against property owned by Nora Brainard.
- Notice was given pursuant to statute by mail, posting, and publication.
- Brainard failed to answer, and the County Court entered a default judgment of foreclosure and issued a deed conveying the property to the town.
- Covey (appellant), as Committee for Brainard, filed a motion in the County Court to open the default, vacate the judgment, and set aside the deed.
- The County Court (trial court) denied the appellant's motion.
- Appellant appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, which affirmed the trial court's order.
- Appellant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court), which also affirmed.
- The U.S. Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to hear the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipality's compliance with statutory notice requirements for a tax foreclosure satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when the municipality knows the property owner is mentally incompetent and lacks an appointed guardian?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Warren
No. A municipality's compliance with statutory notice requirements does not satisfy due process when it knows the property owner is incompetent and lacks a guardian. Citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., the Court reiterated that due process requires 'notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action.' When notice is due, a process that is a 'mere gesture' is insufficient. For a person known to be an unprotected incompetent, who cannot understand the nature of the proceedings, notice by mail, posting, and publication is a mere gesture. Therefore, taking property under such circumstances, where the taxpayer's condition was known to the town, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Concurring - Justice Frankfurter
Agreed with the judgment of reversal. Justice Frankfurter expressed puzzlement that the New York Court of Appeals would so clearly sanction a denial of due process. He hypothesized that the state court may have decided the case on a narrow state procedural ground—that the specific motion to reopen the foreclosure was time-barred—without reaching the constitutional question in a way that would allow for relief. He assumed that upon remand, the New York courts would have the power to provide a remedy to the appellant through a different procedural vehicle, thereby vindicating her constitutional rights.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the Mullane 'notice reasonably calculated' standard by applying it to the specific circumstance of a known, unprotected incompetent. It establishes that the government's procedural obligations under the Due Process Clause are not static but must be adapted to the known incapacities of the individual receiving notice. The ruling imposes a higher duty on government actors than mere statutory compliance, requiring them to take additional steps to ensure notice is effective when they are aware of a party's inability to comprehend the proceedings. This precedent impacts any government action that could deprive a known incompetent of property, forcing a more context-sensitive approach to providing constitutionally adequate notice.
