Greene v. Lindsey

Supreme Court of United States
456 U.S. 444 (1982)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires notice in eviction proceedings to be "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action," meaning that exclusive reliance on notice by posting on a tenant's door is constitutionally inadequate when evidence shows such notices are frequently removed and more reliable, inexpensive alternatives like mail service are available.

Facts:

Kentucky Revised Statute § 454.030 allowed service of process in forcible entry or detainer proceedings by posting a summons on the tenant's door if the defendant or an adult family member could not be found on the premises after an initial attempt at personal service.
In 1975, the Housing Authority of Louisville initiated detainer actions against appellees Linnie Lindsey, Barbara Hodgens, and Pamela Ray, who were tenants in a public housing project, seeking repossession of their apartments.
Service of process was made by posting copies of the writs on the doors of the tenants' apartments, as permitted by the Kentucky statute.
Appellees claimed they never saw these posted summonses and only learned of the eviction proceedings after default judgments were entered against them and their opportunity for appeal had lapsed.
Appellees filed a class action in federal District Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing the notice procedure violated the Due Process Clause.
The District Court granted summary judgment for the appellants, relying on older precedent that found constructive notice by posting adequate, despite acknowledging evidence that posted notices were often removed.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. and noting that uncontradicted testimony from process servers confirmed posted summonses were "not infrequently removed."
The Supreme Court granted probable jurisdiction to review the Court of Appeals' decision.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Whether a Kentucky statute allowing service of process in forcible entry and detainer actions by posting a summons on a tenant's apartment door, as applied to tenants in a public housing project where notices are known to be frequently removed, satisfies the minimum standards of notice required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Brennan

Yes, the Kentucky statute, as applied to tenants in a public housing project, fails to afford constitutionally required notice under the Due Process Clause. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the fundamental requisite of due process is notice "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections" (Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 1950). While acknowledging that posting notice on property can be effective in many cases, especially for property owners expected to superintend their holdings, the Court emphasized the "realities of the case." In public housing projects, testimony from process servers indicated that posted notices were "not infrequently" removed by children or other tenants, rendering this method unreliable. The State's procedure lacked even a second attempt at personal service before resorting to posting and failed to incorporate inexpensive and efficient alternatives like mail service. The Court clarified that the historical distinction between in rem and in personam actions is not determinative, especially when the action deprives individuals of a significant property interest like their homes. Thus, exclusive reliance on an unreliable posting method, when more effective and feasible alternatives are at hand, violates due process.

Dissenting - Justice O’Connor

No, the Kentucky statute's notice procedure, including posting as a last resort, satisfies the due process standard of "notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action." Justice O'Connor argued that forcible entry and detainer actions are summary proceedings requiring "prompt and certain" service to prevent landlords from suffering economic loss (Lindsey v. Normet, 1972). Kentucky's statute provides a multi-step process—attempted personal service, then service on an adult family member, and only then posting—which has historical precedent and is used in many other states. The dissent criticized the majority for overturning this legislative judgment based on "scant and conflicting testimony" from a few process servers. It highlighted testimony indicating that notices were often posted high to prevent removal and that one server had never observed actual removal despite a colleague's suspicion. Furthermore, the dissent questioned the majority's assumption that mail service is inherently superior, noting potential issues with loss or theft from unattended mailboxes, and arguing that posting at least ensures the notice reaches the tenant's door. The dissent concluded that the Court, without adequate evidentiary basis, improperly substituted its judgment for that of the Kentucky Legislature.

Analysis:

This case significantly clarified the application of the Mullane "reasonably calculated" standard for due process notice, especially in the context of eviction proceedings that affect fundamental property interests. It underscored that the practical effectiveness of a notice method, rather than historical classifications like in rem or in personam, is paramount. The decision prompts states to re-evaluate their service of process statutes to ensure they incorporate reliable methods, particularly when initial attempts at personal service fail and known circumstances (like in public housing) diminish the efficacy of less robust forms of notice. Future cases will likely build on the requirement to adopt feasible and customary alternatives, such as mail, when a primary method is demonstrably unreliable.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Greene v. Lindsey (1982)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature