CHIEF JUSTICE: A RE THE ATTORNEYS HERE F OR THE FIRST CASE? ALL RIGHT, WELL , PLEASE COME ON UP. THE FIRST CASE ON THE COURT'S DOCK ET IS VOSILLA VERSUS ROSADO AND T O THEREST OF THE AUDIENCE AND TO THE STATE , WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. PARTIES READY ?
YES .
CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU MAY PROCEED.
THANK YO U. GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONORS. MY NAME IS STEPHEN SAPIENCE A , AND I AM HERE TO DAY ON THE CASE TODAY OF VOSILLA VERSUS RO SADO . A S I AM SURE YOU ARE BY NOW , ALL OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR W ITH WHAT THE ONE LOAN IS SUE BEFORE THIS COURT IS THE.I H AVE MADE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS AT TRYING TO P OSYOU L ATE IN A S INGLE -- AT TR YING TO POSTULATE IN A SI NGLE STATEMENT, AND THE BE ST I CAN CO ME UP WITH IS , I S IT DUE PROCESS WHEN A CLERK SENDS OU T A NOTICE , CERTIFIED MAIL , RECEIVES BACK THE RETURNED RECEIPT SIGNED FOR. THE SHERIF F POST S THEPROPERTY AND THE SALE IS ADVERTISED WITH THE NA MES OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THE NO TICE, BUT THE OWNER S HAVE MADE T WO ATTEMPTS TO HAVE THEIR ADDRESS CHANGED.
CHIEF JUSTICE: IS THAT SO WE HAVE THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, BUT I G UESS ISN'T THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, IT WOULD BE PHRASED AS WHETHERFROM THE PO INT OF VIEW OF THE CL ERK , WHETHER THERE WAS NOTICE THAT WAS REASONABLY CALCULATED TO GIVE ACTUAL NOTICE.
CORRECT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WE HAVE THE STATUTE BUT BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE CONSTITUTION.
ABSOLUTELY.
CHIEF JUST ICE: SO THEN ARE YOU SAYING IT IS REALLY A FACT-SPECIFIC QUESTION?
IT IS.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THEN WHY D O WE HAVE JURISDICTION HERE TO TA KE THE CASE?
BECAUSE OF THE DECISION OF THE FI FTH DCA CONFLICTED WITH ALL PRIOR DECISIONS , AND THEY FOUND THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AS APP LIED TO THESEDEFENDANTS.
JUSTICE: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE US SUP REME COURT 'S DECISION LAST WEEK?
I AM AND I WAS AB OUT TO DISCUSS THAT .
JUSTICE: ARE YOU PREPARED TO COM MENT THAT AND ITSPOSSIBLE E VENT H E CAN'T ON OUR DE CISION - - AND ITS POSSIBLE EFFECT ON OUR DECISION TODAY WITH REFERENCE TO THE DUE PR OCESS ISSUE?
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS HE ADED TOWARDS.
JUSTICE: WHY DON'T YOU DO. THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS TA KEN A VERY B ROAD VIEW OF THE IMPLICATION OF DUE PROCESS CONCERNS IN A MATTER LIKE THIS AND, REA LLY, SEEMED TO HAVE BENT OVER BACKWARDS WITH REFE RENCE TO THIS NOTICE ISSUE IN THAT DECISION, BUT W OULD YOU HELP US WITH REFERENCE TO WHETHERYOU THINK IT IMPACTS OUR DECISION.
ABSOLUTE LY. LET ME JUMP TO THAT V ERY ISSUE. U NDER THE FAC TS OF THIS CASE THERE WAS NOT HING THAT LED THE CLERK TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS LACK OF DUE PROCESS , ACCORDING TO THE R OSADO S --
CHIEF JUSTICE: AC TUALLY CONTEST ED , NOTIFIED THECLERK AND TAX COLLECTOR O N TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS ANDTO THE CLERK BY CERTIFIED MAIL THAT THERE WAS TO BE A CHANGE OF ADDRESS.
CORRECT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WHEN THE SHERIFF WENT OUT TO SERVE THE NOTI CE OF THE SALE , THE SHERIFF AD VISED THE CLERK THAT THE INDIVIDUAL THAT WAS THERE WAS NOT THE RESIDENT , WAS NOT THE TAXPAYER. CORRECT?
CO RRECT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT, THEN , DID THE CLERK DO , FACED WITH THAT?
WELL , REAL LY IT IS JUST OPPOSITE. THE CLERK HAD GOTTEN BACK ASSIGNED RECE IPT FO R THE CERTIFIED MAIL , SO THE A WRY THAT THE SUPREME COURT IN FLOWERS WAS WO RRIED ABO UTWAS , W AIT A M INUTE , CLERK, YOUR CERTIFIED LETTER CAME BACK UNDELIVERED. THIS IS NO BETTER THA N IF YOU HADN'T DONE ANYTHING.
CHIEF JUSTICE: IS WHAT THE ROSADO S DID AS FAR AS SENDING LETTERS, THAT MAKING ANY DIFFERENCE IN HOW WE WOULD ANALYZE THE CASE, OR FROM YOUR REVIEW OF OUR PRIOR CASE LAW? IN OTHER WORDS CASES WHERE THE TAXP AYER DOES NOTH ING.
RIGHT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT THE TAXPAYER HAS MO VED, AND THEN THERE IS A QUESTION SHOULD THE CLERK HAVE DONE SOMETHING MORE.
YES.
CHIEF JUSTICE: OR CASES W HERE FROM THE TAXPAYER'S POINT OF VIEW , THEY HAVE MADE REASONABLE AT HE WANTS TO NOTI FY - - AT TEMPTS TO NOTIFY THE CLERK , THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, THE TAX COLLECTOR OF A CHANGE OF ADDRESS. SHOULD WE ANA LYZE THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION I N ANY DIF FERENT LIGHT, BASED ON WHAT THE TAXPAYER DOES ?
WELL , I THINK YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO.I THINK THAT THE J ONES VERSUS FLOWER DEC ISION , IN FACT, C ITES TWO DECISIONS AS EXAMPLES , WHERE THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T GO BLINDLY ATTEMPTING A SE RVICE THAT THEY KNOW IS GOING TO FAIL ! THE ONE CASE WAS AN I N STANCE WITH A STATE OFFICIAL. I BELIEVE IT IS THE PO LICE DEPARTMENT , ATT EMPTING A FORFEITURE, AND MAILING THE NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO THE HOME AD DRESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL WH OSE PROPERTY THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO FORFEIT, WHEN THEY KNOW HE HAS JUST BEEN PROSECUTED , JUST BEEN SENTENCED TO THE JAIL , AND ISN'T GOING TO BE AT HOME, AND THIS KNOWLEDGE WAS KNOWN TO THEM , BECAUSEIT WAS THE SAME AGENCY , AND THE OTHER EX AMPLE THEY GIVE IS --
JUSTICE: IN THIS CASE , WASN'T THERE KNOWLEDGE OR THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF AT LEAST TWO ACTORS IN THIS CASE, THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE THAT THERE WAS IN FACT , A CHANGE OF ADD RESS.
HERE IS WHAT THE PROBLEMIS WITH THE NOTICE THEY SENT OUT.OKAY. FIRST OFF , IF YOU READ THELETTER, IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY I AM WRITING YOU TO CHANGE MY ADDRESS ON THE TAX RO LLS .
JUSTICE: THEY SA ID FOR ALL PURPOSES OR WORDS TO THAT EF FECT .
FOR ALL PURPOSES BUT WHO ARE THEY SAY ING IT TO? THE CLERK OF THE COURT FOR ALL PUR POSES ANY LETT ERS THAT YOU WANT TO SEND ME , SEND IT TO THIS ADDR ESS.
CHIEF JUSTICE: SPECIFICALLY THEY SAID THEY SENT IT TO THE FIRST ONE WENT TO ATTE NTION PROPERTY --
THAT WAS THE SECOND ONE BUT YOU ARE RIGHT. THE ONE TO THE CLERK WAS SENT TO THE ATTENTION TAXDEPARTMENT. FIRST OF ALL THER E IS NO SUCH THIN G AS A TAX DEPARTMENT. AND SE COND --
CHIEF JUSTICE: I GU ESS WE ARE GETT ING TO THE FACT OF WHETHER YOU SAID THE CLERK'SOFFICE OR THE PROPERTY COLLECTORS OFFICE KNEW OR SHO ULD HAVE KNOW N.
CORRECT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: SO ARE WE NOW GE TTING INTO, IS THIS A FACTUAL ISSU E? IN OTHER WORDS WE ARE HERE, AGAIN , BECAUSE OF A CON FLICT.
RIGHT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THE CONFLICT ABOUT THE SECOND DISTRICT WAS REALLY AND TRULY THE TAXPAYER OUGHT TO KNOW IF THEY HAVEN'T PA IDTHE TAXES THAT SOMETHING IS GOING TO HA PPEN .
RIGHT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: SO YOU YOU AGREE WE HAVE GONE BEYOND THAT.
WE HAVE GONE BEYOND THAT. WHAT WE HAVE GOT NOW IS THESUPREME COURT SAYING TO US IT IS FACT-SPECIFIC. IT IS ABSOLUTELY DUE PROCESS IS NOT DECI DED IN A VACUUM. DUE PROCESS ISN'T THAT YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH SENDING A CERTIFIED LETTER THAT COMES BACK TO YOU UNDELIVERED. NO FOR WARDING ADDRESS. REFUSED. YOU KNOW THAT YOUR ATTEMPT WAS NO GO OD. YOU KNOW YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING MORE TO SATISFY DUE PROCESS. THAT IS WHAT JO NES VE RSUS FLO WERS SAID .
JUSTICE: ISN'T THE MORE DISCREET ISSUE , THOUGH, HERE , THE IM PACT OR A FFECT OF THESE LETTERS WRITTEN BY THE TAXPAYER?
YES .
JUSTICE: I SN'T THAT REALLY --
AND MY PROBLEM WITH IT IS THAT THOSE TWO LETTERS ARE AMBIGUOUS. THE ROSADO S NOR THE FI FTH DISPUTE THE FACT THEY DIDN'T GO TO THE RIGHT DE PARTMENT .
JUSTICE: SO BASICALLYWHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THE GOVERNMENT CERTIFIED LETTER TO THE RESIDENT ON RECORD , IS SUFFICIENT TO --
WHEN IT IS SIGNED.
JUSTICE: BUT THE PROPERTY OWNERS' LETTER TO THE GOVERNMENT WHO IS INTENDINGTO TAKE THEIR PROPERTY IS NOT SUFFICIENT IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES .
FOR THE REASON THAT THE LETTER ADDRES SED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER WENT TO THE R IGHT ADDRESS, ADDRESSED T O THE RIGHT PERSON. THE LETTER SENT BY THE TAXPAYER WAS SENT TO THE WRONG PERSON IN THE W RONG DEPARTMENT!
JUSTICE: BUT WHEN IT CAME BACK, WAS THE CERT IFICATE SIGNED BY THE PERSON THAT IT WAS SENT TO?
I DON'T THINK THAT E VE N THE SUPREME COURT WOULD REQUIRE, NOW WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A WR ITING EXPERT SAY IS THIS REALLY THEIR SIGNATURE ? I M EAN , I THINK YOU ARETAKING IT WAY BEYO ND.
JUSTICE: WE KNOW THAT THEY WE RE NOT THERE AND THEY WERE NOT THE PE OPLE WHOSIGNED, YET YOU WANT TO PUT THEM ON A PLANE WHER E THEY HAVE TO BE VERY PR ECISE BUT YET THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT. THAT SEEMS TO BE WHERE YOU ARE HEADED WITH THIS ARGUMENT.
NO. WHAT I AM SAYING IS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO BE ON NOTICE THAT THEIR MEANS OF SERVICE IS NOT GOING TO BE EFFECTULE , THEY HAVE TO BEEN QUOTE/UNQUOTE ON NOTICE , AND THE TWO CASES CITED WAS ONE THAT I JUST REF ERRED TO, WHERE THEY JUST FINISHED PROSECUTING THE MAN , THE SAME DEPARTMENT THAT IS TRYING TO FORFEIT HIS AS SETS , AND THE OTHER ONE WAS OF A RECLUSE , WEALTHY LA DY , WHO WAS IN E SSENCE ANALOGOUS TO THE TOWN DRUNK.
JUSTICE: ARE THOS E THE ONLY TWO TYPES OF NOTICE?
OF NOTICE.
JUSTICE: THAT YOU YOU BELIEVE ARE IMP ACTED --
CORR ECT. CORRECT.
JUSTICE: IT LEAVES NO R OOM FOR DISCUSSION WITH REGARD TO OTHER TYPES OF NOTIFICATION COMING TO THE GOVERNMENT, WITH RE GARD TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS OR THE CITIZENS ' PROPERTY BEING ADVERSELY IMPA CTED.
I AM SOUGHT SAYING THAT , BUT - - I AM NOT SAYING THAT , BUT I AM SAYING NEITHER SHOOT BU RDEN BE O N THE GOVERNMENT THAT IF THE INNOCUOUS LETTER THAT C OMES IN, THE CLERK SHOULD TAKE CARE OF THIS ORPHAN LETTER AND FIND IT A HOME , BECAUSE THE CLERK'S OFFICE DOES NOT MAINTAIN RECO RDS .
JUSTICE: THIS ORPHAN LETTER IS TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT.
YES.
JUSTICE: AND WHO MAIL EDTHE NOTICE AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE?
PA RDON ME?
JUSTICE: WHO MAILED THE NOTICE FROM THE GOV ERNMENT THAT IS AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE, THE CERTIFIED LETTER TO THE HOMEOWNER?
THE CLERK OF COURT.
JUSTICE: AND THAT SAME CLERK OF THE COURT RECEIVED A CERTIFIED LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE CLERK OF THE COURTFROM THE PROPERTY OWNER , SAYING THAT OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS SHOULD BE CHANGED TO THE FOLL OWING .
RIGHT AT A TIME WHEN THECLERK OF THE COURT DID NOT HAVE A TAX DEED FILE OPEN , DOESN'T MAINTAIN RECORDS GENERALLY OF ALL OF THE CITIZENS I N SEMINOLE COU NTY , AND KEEP AN UPDATE OF THEIR ADDRESS , AND THEN KEEP IT IN A COMPUTER ON THE HOPES THAT SOMEDAY THERE WILL BE A TAX DEED SALE , AND THEY WILL NEED THAT ADDRESS.
CHIEF JUSTICE: LET'S JUST GO BACK TO THE TEACHING OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE. WHAT DID YOU READ OR WHAT DOYOU THINK THAT THIS STATEMENT MEANS BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS? THERE IS NO REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT THE STATE WILL EVER BE LEFT F ULLY ZEALOUS IN ITS EFFORTS TO SECUR E THE TAX REVENUE THAT IT NE EDS.
I TO OK THAT AS BEING A LITTLE FACETIOUS.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID FOR THE STATE'S EFFORT S TO E NSURE THAT ITS CITIZENS RECEIVE PROPER NOTICE BEFORE THE STATE TAKES ACTION AGAINST THEM, WHICH IN THIS CASE THE STATE IS EX ERTING EXTRAORDINARY POWER AGAINST A PROPERTY OWNE R, TAKING AND SELL AGO HOUSE THAT HE OWN S, SO WHETHER THEY ARE BEING FACETIOUS OR IT IS A PART O F THE HO LDING , WHAT IS THAT TELLING US ABOUT WHAT TYPE OF EFFORT , LET ME FINISH --
THEY NEED TO D O MORE - - IAM SORR Y.
CHIEF JUSTICE: YES . ABOUT THE EFFORT THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO TAKE BEFORE THEY CAN DEP RIVE A PROPERTY OWNER OF HIS O R HERHOME? WHAT, SO THEY HAVE TO DO M ORE THAN JUST --
THAN JUST SERVICE. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE AT. I MEAN , IF YOU TAKE IT IN THE L INE , MALAIGN CAME OUTSAYING THAT JUST PUBLISHING IN THE NEWS PAPER , INTERESTING THEY EMPHASIZE THE FACT NOT ON LY IS IT IN A NEWSPAPER AND A NEWS PAPER L OCALLY THAT M OST PEO PLE WOULD READ, BUT YOU ARE NOT EVEN NAMING THE RIGHT DEFENDANTS WHOSE RI GHTS YOU ARE DEPR IVING , SO MALAIGN STANDS FOR THE POINT OF VIEW PUBLICATION AL ONE ISN'T GOOD. THE N WE CAME UP TO THE MENNONITE CASE, AND NOW WE HAVE PUBLICATION AND WE HAD SERVICE ON THE HOME OWNER , AND WE HAD THE NAME OF THE DEFENDANT COMPLAINING, WHICH IS THE MORTGAGE GEE. BUT , AGAIN -- THE MORT GAGEE , BUT , AGAIN , THE SUPREME COURT SAID YOU MAY HAVE HADTHE NAME IN THE UP IN BUT THAT PRESU MES -- NAME IN THEUP IN , BUT THAT - - -IN THE NEWSPAPER , BUT THAT PRES UMES THAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT THAT NEWSPAPER , AND THAT THE HOMEOWNER MIGHT TELL THEIR LENDER THAT THEY GOT THIS NOTICE.
JUSTICE: LET ME COME BACK TO YOUR SUGGESTION EARLIERTHAT THIS IS A FACT UAL ISSUE AND THAT IT SHOULD T URN ON , AM I CORRECT THAT THE T RIAL COURT HERE FOUND THAT THE ROSADO S' FA ILURE TO RECEIVE NOTICE WAS COMPLETELY THEFAULT OF THE TAXING AGENCIES, BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO UPDATE THE R OSADO S' ADDRESS , DESPITE RECEIVING NOTIFICATION OF THE ROSADO 'S NEW ADDRESS? DID THE TRIAL COURT MA KETHAT FIND SOMETHING.
THAT IS THE CONCLUSION THE COURT REACHED , YES.
JUSTICE: THE TR IAL COURT.
YES, SIR .
JUSTICE: NOW, IS THAT A CORRECT CONCLUSION?
I DON'T AG REE WITH THAT CONCLUSION.
JUSTICE: IT IS A FACTUAL FINDING , AND IF YOU AGREETHAT IT TURNS ON A FACTUAL FINDING , HOW CAN YOU E SCAPE THE IMPACT, THEN, OF A FACTUAL FINDING THAT SAYS THAT THIS WAS COMPLE TELY THEFAULT OF THE TAXING AGE NCIES BECAUSE THEY FAI LED TO U PDATE THE CHAN GE OF ADDRESS? ISN'T THAT , ISN'T THAT THEEND OF THE CASE UN DER A FACTUAL ISSUE RULE?
I DON'T THINK SO , BE CAUSE THE FINDING THAT IT WAS THE FAULT OF THE TAXING DEPARTMENT THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE ADDRESS , DOESN'T CORRELATE D I RECTLY TO , AND IS THAT A DEPRIVEMENT OF DUE PROCESS. WHAT IS AT ISSUE TODAY IS THE FACT THAT THE CLERK WHO IS WHO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES KEYS IN O N , IN JONES, SAYS --
JUSTICE: WHAT DO WE DO WITH THAT FACTUAL FINDIN G IN THIS CASE?
YOU HAVE TO AS SESS THAT AS IT IMPACTS ON THE ISSUE OF DUE PROCESS YOU HAVE TO DETERMINEWHETHER OR NOT --
JUSTICE: SO YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THE CORRECTNESS OF IT.
I DON 'T .
JUSTICE: HOW CAN YOU AVOID ACCEP TING THE CORRECTNESS OF IT?
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THOSE TWO LETTERS WE RE NOT SENT TO THE TAXING AUTHORITY. THAT IS WHI -- MY WHOLEPOINT. THE WHOLE POINT IS IF YOU A LLOW LETTERS TO BE SENT OUT , O NE TO THE UNITED STATES POST OFFICE AND ONE TO THE U .S. COAST GUARD AND NOW THE I.R.S. SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLEFOR KNOWING BECA USE THEY HAVE AS KED THEM TO CHANGE THEIR ADDRESS IN THE TAX DEPARTMENT!
JUSTICE: THAT IS NOT THEFACTS HERE, AND THIS TRIAL COURT KNEW WHERE THIS LETTER HAD BEEN SENT HERE , CORRECT?
THIS LETTER WAS SENT TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT.
JUSTICE: RIGHT .
BUT THE CLERK OF THE COURT DOESN'T MAINTAIN ANY FILES.
JUSTICE: WHAT ABOUT THE LETTER TO THE TAX COLLECTOR?
THE TAX COLLECTOR DOESN'T CHANGE ADDRESSES. THE TAX COLL ECTOR ONL Y TAKES THE INFORMATION ON THE TAX ROLL .
JUSTICE: WHO CERTIFIES THE INFORMATION ON THE TAX ROLLING?
THE ON -- THE TAX RO LL?
THE TAX ASSESSOR AND THE TAX COLLECTOR.
JUSTICE: WHAT I S THE CERTIFICATION?
THE CERTIFICATION OF THE TAX COLLECTO R IS THAT THEY CERTIFY THAT, A FTER HAVING DONE A T ITLE SE ARCH , THESE ARE THE INDIVIDUALS ENTITLED TO NOTICE , AND THESE ARE THEIR ADDRESSES .
JUSTICE: AND IF THIS HOMEOWNER SENDS THE NOTICE TO THAT TAX COLLECTOR THAT THIS IS MY NEW ADDRESS , ANDON THAT LETTER I T INCLUDES THE PROPERTY I.D . NUMBER , WHY IS THAT NOT SUFFICIENT?
BECAUSE FIRST OFF , AGAIN , THE TAX COLLECTOR DOES NOT CHANGE ADDRESSES . ROSADO S DON'T AR GU E E W, THE DCA ARGUES --
JUSTICE: SO BASICALLY YOUR ARGU MENT IS IT IS OKAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SEND A CERTIFIED LETTER TO A HOME THAT MAY BE LEASED AND IT MAY BE A TEMPORARY OCCUPANT OF THAT HOME , AND THERE IS SOME REASON ABLE BAS IS TO ASSUME FOR DUE PROTEST THAT THAT NONOWNER HAS AN OBLIGATION OR DUTY TO G IVE IT TO THE OWNER, BUT THE GOVERNMENT WHO RECEIVED TWO LETTERS TO THE CLERK OF THECOURT AND THE TAX COLLECTOR , THAT THERE IS NO OBLIGATION OF THE TAX COLLECTOR TO CHANGE I T OR S I MPLY FORWARD THE LETTER TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER?
NO. I THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO BE JUST AS FACT-SPECIFIC. YOU KEEP HAMMERING THAT --
CHIEF JUSTICE: MR . SAPIENCE A , FIRST OF ALL YOU SHOULD STAY CLOSE TO THE PODIUM. I WANT TO REMIND YOU AND YOU ARE V ERY ENERGIZED BY THIS,THAT YOU ARE WELL INTO YOUR REBUTTAL. YOU ONLY HAVE TWO MINUTES LEFT, SO PLEASE RESPOND TO JUSTICE BELL 'S, AND THEN YOU MAY WANT TO SAVE THE REST OF YOUR TIME .
IT IS VE RY FACT-SPECIFIC. THIS ISN'T SOME OCCUPANT WHO IS L IVING AT SOME PROPERTY THAT WE SUPPOSE THE OWNER M IGHT GET IT. WE HAVE THE OWNER'S F A THER. WE HAVE THE OWNER'S FATHER AND HIS N U RSE THERE . SOMEONE BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM SIGNED FOR THIS, BECAUSE THE MAIL MAN COMES TO THE FRONT DO OR. OKAY. THEY ACCEPT THAT LETTER . NOW , YOU WAN T TO ASSUME THAT THAT P E RSON TH RE W THAT LETTER AWAY AND DIDN'T GIVE IT TO THE ROSADO S , AND THE ROSADO S COME TO V ISIT THEIR FATHER, THEY TOTALLY DON'T SEE THE POSING OF THE SI GNIN THE FR ONT -- THE POSTING OF THE SIGN IN THE FRONT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: NOW WE ARE GOING TO THE FACT THAT THE SHERIFF TO LD THE CLERK THAT THE ROSADO S DIDN'T LIVE THERE.
HE EXPLAINED THAT --
CHIEF JUSTICE: IF YOU WANT TO S AVE THE REST OF YOUR TIME FOR RE BUTTAL, YOU NOW HAVE A MINUTE.
HE WENT AND SAID THAT BECAUSE THAT SECTION PL ANED WHY HE POSTED AND TH AT WAS HIS REASON FOR MAKING THAT STATEMENT. THAT WASN'T ANAL RM -- THAT WASN'T AN AL ARM .
JUSTICE: HOW WOULD THE AVERAGE SIT EXCEPT NOW WHERETO SEND SU CH A NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS? WE HAVE THESE PEOPLE AT LEAST ATTEMPTING TW ICE TO SEND IT TO A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, THEIR CHANGE OF ADDRESS.HOW WOULD THEY KNOW? HOW WOULD I KN OW? HOW WOULD ANYONE KNOW?
IT IS VERY E ASY. E VERY YEAR WHEN YOU GET YOUR TAX BIL L, AND BY THE WAY THEY DIDN'T PAY THEIR '97 , '98 OR ' 99 TAX B I LLS. THAT IS TWO OTHER YEARS THAT THEY DIDN'T SEND THEIR TAXBILLS IN, AND I SAY THAT FOR BLAME, BECAUSE ON THE TAX BILL IT SAYS SENDING A PAYMENT, HERE IS A BOX FORCHANGE OF ADDRESS. MAIL IT BACK TO US. WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE YOUR ADDRESS AND G UESS WHAT ? THE TAX ASSESS OR WI LL GET THAT LETTER AND GET THAT CHECK AND HE WILL CHANGE HIS TAX ROLLS.
JUSTICE: SO A LETTER TO THE TAX DEPARTMENT. NO ONE TA KES ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR GIVING IT TO THE TAX ASSESSOR 'S OFFICE.
CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU MAYANSWER THE QUESTION AND THEN YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE CLERK TO FORWARD THAT LETTER TO THETAX ASSESSOR OR APPRAISERSOFFICE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LETTER DOESN'T SAY THAT ISWHERE IT IS GOING.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS SH ERRI DeWITT AND I REPRES ENT THE ROSADO S. THERE ARE BASI CALLY THREE THINGS THAT THE TAXING AUTHORITIES DID W RONG IN THE ROSADO CASE. ONE IS --
JUSTICE: BEFORE WE GET TO THEM LET'S START WHERE WE ENDED WITH YOUR OPPONENT HERE, THAN IS WHY DID NOT THE ROSADOS SEND THEIR NOTICE TO THE TAX APPRAISER , PURSUANT TO WHAT HE CLIMBS CHRAIMS TO BE WHEN THEY GET -- HE CLAIMS TO BE WHEN THEY GET THEIR NOTICE OF TAXES , THE SPECIFIC PLACE, ADDRESS ON IT THAT SAYS WHERE YOU SEND A CHANGE OF ADDRESS. WHY DIDN'T THEY SEND THEIR NOTICE TO THIS SP ECIFIC ADDRESS?
THEY ACTUALLY WERE MORE DILIGENT THAN THAT. THEY KNEW THEY WERE GOING TO BE MOVING, AND THEY KNEW THAT HER ELDERLY FATHER AND A CARE GIVER WERE GOIN G TO BE THERE WHO DID NOT SPE AK ENGLISH , SO BEFORE THEY GOT THEIR NEW TAX BILL, BEFORE THEY MOVED , THEY SENT THE LETTER TO THE CLERK, TO THE TAX COLLECTOR . BEFORE THEY MOVE D. THEN THEY MOVED. SO THE BILL CAM E TO THE OLD ADDRESS BECAUSE THE TAX COLLECTOR NEVER CHANGE D THE ADDRESS , SO THEY NEVER GOT THAT LITTLE , A FTER THEY DISCOVERED THEY WERE GOINGTO MOVE , THEY N EVER GOT THAT LITTLE FORM THAT OP POSING COUNSEL IS TAL KING A BOUT , IN ORDER TO SIGN AND FILL OUT .
JUSTICE: IS YOUR OPP ONENT CORRECT THAT THEY WERESEVERAL YEARS I N A REAR S WITHOUT PA YING TAXES ON THE PROPERTY?
WHAT HAPPENED WAS TAX CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED FOR NONPAYMENT OF 1 997 TAXES AND IN 1997 THEY REFINANCED THEIR HOME. THEY WERE U NDER THE IMPRESSION THAT AS PART OF THE REFINANCE , THE TAXES WERE PA ID. F ROM A FACTUAL STANDPOINT WE COULD NEVER FIND THE CLOSINGSTATEMENT.WE DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ACTUALLY PAID . BUT ANYWAY, THEY ASSUMED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE CASE THAT THEY WEREN'T PAID. IT WAS A 1 9 98 THAT THEY SENT THE FIRST NOTICE T O THE TAX COLLECTOR , WHEN THEY H A DN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING. WHEN THEY STILL HADN'T RECEIVED ANYT HING, THEY C ALLED AND SAID, WHERE DO WE SEND THIS NOTICE TO? WE STILL HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING.
JUSTICE: I AM NOT CERTAIN I UNDERSTAND. ARE YOU SAYING THAT, WELL , HOW MANY Y EARS WERE THEY I N ARREARS IN BACK TAXES?
THERE WAS ACTUALLY NO TESTIMONY EL ICITED IN WITHREGARD TO T HAT. THE CLERK 'S RECORDS AND OPPOSING COUNSEL INDICATE THAT IT WAS 1997 , 1998 AND 1999.
JUSTICE: I AM NOT SURE, YOU SAID INITIALLY THAT THEY BELIEVED THAT THE TAX BILLS WERE BEING SENT TO THE FINANCIER OF THE THIN G?
CORRECT.
JUSTICE: AND THEY REFINANCED?
CORRECT.
JUSTICE: I AM TR YING TO RECONCILE THAT WITH , THEN WHY WOULD THEY SEND A NOTICE AFTER CHANGE OF ADDRESS, I F THEY THOUGHT THE TAX WAS BEING PAID BY SOMEBODY EL SE?
JUST IN 1997. THEY THOU GHT 1997'S TAXES WERE PAID AS PART OF THE REFINANCING. THE TAXES WEREN'T BEIN GES CORRODE.
JUSTICE: I DIDN'T -- BEING ESCROW ED.
JUSTICE: I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR ANSWER.D OES THE RECORD REFLECT THAT TAXES WERE NOT PAID IN 1997 , 1 998 AND 1999. IS THAT IN THE RECORD OR J UST SOME BODY MA KING ARGUMENT?
THERE IS NO TESTIMONY.
JUSTICE: WERE THEREDOCUMENTS? WERE THERE EXHIBITS?
THAT IS WHAT THE EXHIBITS REFLECT, THERE WERE TAX CERTIFICATE THAT WERE ISSUED FOR THOSE DA TES.
JUSTICE: SO THERE WERE TAX CERTIFICATE THAT WERE ISSUED SO IN FACT THEY HAD NOT PAID THOSE TAXES.
CORRECT.
JUSTICE: DID THEY RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE DELINQUENCY?
THAT I S THE WHOLE POINT. H AD THE TAX COLLECTOR CORRECTLY R EFLECTED THEIR NEW ADDRESS , THEY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED NOTICE BUT , NO , THEY DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THOSE DELINQUENCEIES , AND THAT IS WHAT --
JUSTICE: THERE WAS NO NOTICE THAT WAS SENT TO THE OLD ADDRESS.
CORRECT. A LL OF THE NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE OLD ADDRESS.
CHIEF JUSTICE: SO YOU WERE STARTING YOUR ARGUMENT ON THE THREE THINGS THE TAXING AUTHORITIES DIDWRONG.DO YOU WANT TO SEE IF YOU CAN PICK UP THERE.
YES. THE FIRST THING IS, WHEN THEY SENT THE CERTIFIED LETTER TO THE ROSADO 'S ADDRESS, IT WAS SIGN ED, BUT IT WAS CLE AR, THE SIGNATURE WAS CLEAR AND THE CLERK TESTIFIED THAT THEY COULD READ THE SIGNATURE. IT WAS NOT THE ROSADO S. IT WAS CLEARLY A DIFFERENT N AME , SO IT IS CLEA RLY NOTSIGNED BY THE ROSADO S. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE THAT I THINK OPPO SING COUN SEL WAS TRYING TO MAKE BETWEEN THE J ONES V FLOWERS CASE FACTUALLY TO 24 THIS CASE. IN JONES V FLOWERS, THE CERTIFIED RECEIPT WAS UNCLAIMED.IT CAME BACK.
CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THE LETTERS THAT THE ROSADO S SENT , JUST ON THIS FIRST ISSUE, A CLERK SENDS A CERTIFIED LETTER TO WHAT THE CLERK BELIEVES TOBE THE PROPER ADDRESS. SOMEONE SIGNED FOR IT. ARE YOU SAYING THAT, BECAUSEOF JONES OR SOME OTHER DUE PROCESS , THAT THAT ALONE , NOT BEING SIGNED BY THE A CTUAL PROPERTY OWNER , SHOULD PU T THE CLERK ON NOTICE THAT THEY HAVE GOT TO DO SOMETHING MORE?
YES.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT CASE DO YOU THINK --
JONES V FLOWERS.
CHIEF JUSTICE: JONES V FLOWERS SAYS THAT NO BODY, IT WAS RETURNED UNCL AIMED .
THE REASON JONES V FLOWER IS BECAUSE IF THE TAXING AUTHORITY HAD REASON TOBELIEVE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE , THEN THEY HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO TAKE REASONABLE ADDITI ONAL STEPS .
CHIEF JUSTICE: SO THAT YOU, AGAIN , THIS CASE WITHOUT THE ROSADO S SENDINGTHE TWO LETTERS, SHOULD HAVE THE SAME OUTCOME?
YES.
CHIEF JUSTICE: D O WE HAVE TO GET THERE IN ORDER TO A PPEASE THE RESULT?
NO AND THAT IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO S AY IS THERE WERE THREE DIFF ERENT BASIS , THREE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE M, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER , PROVIDES A VIOLATION OF DU E PROCESS.
JUSTICE: AGAIN YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT THE AUTHORITY. YOU SAID JONES, AND THE CHIEF HAS REMINDED YOU THAT THE FACTS OF JONES ARE FAR DIFFERENT. WHERE IS THERE ANY AUTHORITY THAT PUTS THE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE TAXING PEOPLE, NOW , TO CAREFULLY EXAMINE THE SIGNATURE THAT MAY BE THERE THAT ACCEP TED THIS AND SAYS FIRST OF ALL , WHET HER THEY CAN E VEN READ THE W RITING .
SURE.
JUSTICE: WHERE IS THERE SOME AUTHORITY THAT SAYS THAT EACH OF THOSE THAT COME BACK NOW, THA T THEY HAVE TO CAREFULLY EXAMINE TO BE CERTAIN THAT THE PERSON THAT SIGNED FOR IT IS THE TAXPAYER THAT IT WAS ADDRESSED TO.
IN THIS CASE, THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO CAREFULLY EXAMINEIT. THEY COULD JUST LOOK AT IT AND SEE.
JUSTICE: I AM NOT AS KINGYOU THAT QUESTION.I AM ASKING YOU WHERE IS THE AUTHORITY THAT THEY HAVE TO CAR EFULLY EXAMINE THE SIGNATURE ON IT?
THERE ISN'T ANY, BUT WHAT THE COURT HAS IN THIS CASE , THAT BRI NG S INTO PLAY THE JONES V FLOWERS CASE , IS THE SHERIFF TO LD THE CLERK THE ROSADO S N O LO NGER LIVE THERE. THAT PUTS THE CLERK ON NOTICE THAT , THE NOTICE TO THE ROSADOS , THAT THEY HAD G IVEN ADE QUATE NOTICE.
JUSTICE: YOU WENT TO ANOTHER POINT AS OPPOSED TO STICKING WITH , I AM HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH YOUR FIRST PROPOSITION THAT YOU SAID THE CASE COULD BE DECIDED ON , AND THAT IS THAT THE SIGNATURE WASN'T THE SIGNATURE OF THE TAXPAYER .
I DON'T THINK , I DON'T THINK I MADE MY MI SELF CLEAR. THE ONE ARGUMENT IS UNDER JONES V FLOWERS, BECAUSE THE CLERK HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THEY DIDN'T RECEIVE NOTICE. THERE ARE TWO REASONS WHY THE CLERK HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT. ONE WAS THE CERTIFIED MAIL CAME BACK NOT SIGNED BY THEM. THE OTHER WAS THAT THE CLERK WAS TOLD THEY NO LON GER LI VETHERE.
CHIEF JUSTICE: SO NOW YOU CLARIFIED SOMETHING, BECAUSEI ASKED YOU, WOULD YOU THINKTHAT THERE SHOULD BE A RULE OF L AW THAT IF IT IS SIGNED FOR , THAT THAT ALONE PUTS THE CH RORK NOTICE THAT THE -- THE CLERK ON NOTICE T HAT THE ACTUALLY, IF IT IS SIGNED BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE TAXPAY ER, THAT THAT ALONE SHOULD PUT THEM ON NOTICE. I THOUGHT YOU SAID YES, AND NOW YOU ARE SAYING, IS THAT IN COMBINATION WITH WHAT THE SHERIFF SAID?
IN THIS CASE IT IS THAT IN COMB INATION WITH WHAT THE SHERIFF SAID, SO YOU HAVE THOSE TWO FACTS TO GETHER . SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION.MY OPINION WOULD BE THAT , Y ES, IF THE NOTICE WERE CLEAR , THAT IT WAS NOTSIGNED BY THE TAXPAYER , THEN THAT SHOULD PUT THE CLERK ON NOTICE. B UT YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT ONE QUESTION , BECAUSEYOU HAVE THE TWO FACTUAL ISSUES HERE , AS FAR AS JONES.
CHIEF JUSTICE: AND THE THIRD?WHA T IS THE THIRD?
THERE IS A SECOND ONE. THE SECOND ONE IS THAT THE ROSADO S G AV E NOTICE TO BOTH THE TAX COLLECTOR AND THECLERK. EVEN UNDER THE DI SSENT IN JONES V FLOWERS , THE DIS SENT DISSENTS IN LA RGE PART BECAUSE THE CLERK SENT THENOTICE TO THE ADDRESS PROVIDED TO THE TAXING AUTHORITIES BY THE TAXPAY ER. THAT WAS THE BASIC RATIONALE FOR THE COURT'S DISSENT IN JONES V FLOWERS. IN THIS CASE, THEY DIDN'T SEND THE NOTICE TO THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE TAXPAYERS.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT WAS THE TESTIMONY OF THE ROSADO S AS TO WH Y IN ONE YEAR THEY SENT A LETTER TO THE TAX COLLECTOR AND THEN AN OTHER YEAR THEY SENT IT TO THECLERK , AND ONE THEY SENT CERTIFIED , RETURN RECEIPT. WHAT WAS THEIR TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT THEY DID AND WHY K.
WELL , THE FIRST TIME THEY EXTENT -- THEY SENT IT TO THE TAX COLLECTOR BECAUSE THEY TRADITIONALLY GOT THEIR TAX BILLS FROM THE TAX COLLECTOR .
CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT THEIR INTENT IN SENDING IT TO THE TAX COLLECTOR WAS T O UPDATE THE FILE.
EXACTLY AND THAT IS WHAT A REASONABLE PE RSON WOULD DO. YOU GET YOUR BILLS FR OM THE TAX COLLECTOR. YOU ARE GOING TO MOVE. YOU GIVE THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS TO THE TAX COLLECTOR.
CHIEF JUSTICE: ALL RIGHT.
WHEN THEY DIDN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING BACK, THEY SAID WAIT A MINUTE.WE WA NT TO BE S U RE WE GOT THE CORRECT ADDRESS. M AYBE WE SENT IT TO THE WRONG PLACE. THEY ACTUALLY CALLED THECLERK OF COURT AND THEY ASKED WHERE DO WE SEND THIS TO. THE CLERK --
CHIEF JUSTICE: THEY ASKED WHERE DO WE S END IT TO BECAUSE WE WANT UPDATES FOR TAX PURPOSES?
EXAC TLY. EXACTLY.AND THAT IS WHY THE CLERK OF COURT SAID CLERK OF COURT ATTENTION TAX DEPARTMENT,AND THAT IS WHERE THEY SENT IT .
CHIEF JUSTICE: THEY SENT IT RETURN , WHY DID THEY S AYTHEY WERE SENDING IT RETURN RECEIPT?
I BELIEVE THEY A L SO SENT THE FIRST ONE RETURN RECEIPT, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE RETURN RECEIPT S I NCE IT WAS O LDER. WE DIDN'T HAVE THE RETURN RECEIPT. SHE COULDN'T FIND IT. BUT THIS ONE SHE DID HAVE .
CHIEF JUSTICE: AND THE SIGNATURE ACTUALLY HAS ONTHERE THAT IT WAS ADDRESSEDTO THE CLERK OF COURT ATTENTION PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT. IT WAS SIGNED BY SOME BODYTHAT WAS PUT DO WN AS AG ENT.
YES . BUT I WANTED TO GET TO THE THIRD ARGUME NT, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT BASIS.THE ONE IS UNDER JONES V F LOWERS, G IVEN THE TWO FACTS ABOUT THE RECEIPT BEINGSIGNED BY SOMEONE ELSE AND THE SH ERIFF NOTI FYING THEM THAT THEY NO LONGER LIVE THERE , AND THE DISSENT 'S VIEW IS THE SEC OND ARGUMENT THAT, BECAUSE THEY NOTIFIED THEM, THE ADDRESS WAS NOT WHAT THEY NOTIFIED THEM WHERE IT SHOULD BE SENT , SO IT WASN'T THE ADDRESS THE TAXPAYER PROV IDED , AND THE THIRD IS UNDER THIS COURT'S DECISION IN DELTA , BECAUSE THE FACTS HERE ARE V ERY SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN DELTA. THE CLERK OF THE COURT WAITED O VER 5 MONTHS BETWEENTHE TIME THEY GOT THE TAX COLLECTOR 'S STA TEMENT ANDTHE TIME THEY SENT THE NOTICE TO THE ROSADOS. IN THE MEANTIME , JULY 1 CAME AND WENT, AND JULY 1 IS THEDATE THAT THE TAX COLLECTOR --
JUSTICE: BUT IN THIS C ASE , EVEN IF THEY HAD CH ECKED WITH THE TAX COLLECTOR 'S OFFICE AF TER THE JULY 1 D ATE, THE TAX COLLECTOR HAD NOT CHANGED THE INFORMATION, SO THE DATE , THE ADDRESS WOULDSTILL HAVE BEEN THE SAME AS THE ADDRESS ON THE PREVIOUS NOTICE.
THAT IS BECAUSE , BY FAILING TO CHANGE THE ADDRESS AS RE QUESTED B Y THE TAXPAYER, THE CLERK , THE TAXING AUTHORITIES IN EFFECT MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE T O COMPLY WITH DELT A. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY SHOULD HAVE CHANGE D THE ADDRESS , AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REFL ECTED ON T HE 20 00 ROLLS.
CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT IT IS THE TAX, JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND, IT IS THE PROPERTY APPRAISER 'SRESPONSIBILITY, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO UPDATE ADDRESSES ON THE TAXROLL?
I SUBMIT , PURSUANT TO THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRA TIVE CO DE, IT IS ALL THRE E'S RESPONSIBILITY.
CHIEF JUSTICE: LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT WE DON'T INTERPRET THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AS YOU HAVE. WHAT ABOUT UNDER THE STATUTES, WHOSERESPONSIBILITY IS IT?
BOTH THE TAX ASSESSOR ANDTHE TAX COLLECTOR .
CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT STATUTE IS IT THAT DILL ENYATES THAT -- DELINEATES THAT RESPONSIBILITY?
FLORIDA STATUTE 19 7. 197.0423. A TAX COLLECTOR RECEIVES NOTE FIST AN ADDRESS IS SUPPLIED TO THE TAX COLLECTOR BY SUCH LIEN HOLDER. THAT IS A LIEN HOLDER. IT IS NOT A PROPERTY OWNER.
CHIEF JUSTICE: LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT WHAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDS IS THE DUTY. ONE ENTITY OU GHT TO HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR UPDATING THE TAX RO LLS. ISN'T IT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER THAT HAS THAT RESPONSIBILITY?
I BELIEVE IT MAY BE, YES .
CHIEF JUSTICE: A GAIN , THIS WOULD , YOU WOULD HAVE A TOTAL SLAM DUNK , I F THEY HAD SENT THE THIRD LETTER THEY SENT, AND THEY SENT IT TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER. I THINK THAT EVEN THEPETITIONER WOULD AG REE WITH YOU ON THAT . THEIR ARGUMENT IS YOU MISSED THE MARK. YOU SENT IT TO TWO OUT OF THE THREE ENTITIES AND YOU MISSED THE ENTITY THAT IT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO.
AS THE FI FTH D CA SAID , HOWEVER, THERE IS NO STATUTE, THERE IS NO REGULATION THAT S AYS WHO A TAXPAYER N EEDS TO SEND A CHANGE OF ADDRESS TO, IN O RDER TO EFFECTUATE A CHA NGE OF ADDRESS , AND AS IT DOES MAKE SENSE THAT A TAXPAYER WOULD SEND IT TOTHE TAX COLLECTOR , BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THEY GET THEIR B ILLS FROM.
CHIEF JUSTICE: DID THE PERSON THAT SIGN FOR IT , DID THAT PE RSON TES TIFY IN THE HEARING BELOW AS T O GET TING THE NOTICE AND WHAT HE OR SHE WOULD HAVE DONE WITH IT?
NO. THE PER SON DIDN'T TEST IFY AT ALL.
CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT PRESUMABLY, THEY HAVE T O F ILE IT SOMEWHERE. I MEAN , TO ASK WHAT THE REGULAR PRACTICE IS WHEN THERE IS A CHANGE OF ADDRESS RECEIVED BY ONE OF THE , TWO OF THE T HREE ENTI TIES THAT IS RESPONSI BLE FOR SOME ASPECT OF THE TAXES?
I DID. I ASKE D WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THE RECEIPT FOR THE CLERK'S DEPARTMENT, WHATTHEY DID WITH IT AND THEY SAID THEIR POLICY WAS TO FORWARD IT TO THE CORRECTDEPARTMENT.
JUSTICE: TO WHAT?
TO FORWARD IT TO THE CORRECT .
CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT WASTHE AMOUNT OF UN PAID TAXE S?
APPROXIMATELY $2,000 .
CHIEF JUSTICE: W HAT WAS THE VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY? WHAT WAS THE TESTIMONY AS TO THE VA LUE OF THE PROPERTY?
I DON'T REMEMBER THEVALUE. THE AMOUNT OF E QUITY IN IT WAS ABOUT $70,000 , AND THEAMOUNT OF THE BID WAS APPROXIMATELY $27,000.
JUSTICE: WHAT WAS, THE REIS A MEMORA NDUM IN THE FILE F ROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER S OFFICE TO THE CLERK 'S OFFICE, ASKING IT TO CERTIFY THREE THI NGS , THE LA ST OF W H ICH IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE OF ADDRESS. WHAT WAS THE TESTIM ONY REGARDING THE PURPOSE OF THAT MEMO ? DO YOU KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT ?
WHERE THE CLERK, WHERE THE TAX COLLECTOR , IN THE STATEMENT THAT THEY SEND TO THE CLERK , HAS A "X" TO FILL OUT IF --
TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER.
YES.THE FORM SHOWS , NO. IT WAS JUST CHE CKED.
JUSTICE: WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE FORM ?
WELL --
JUSTICE: WHY DID THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SEND THE FORM AND REQUEST THE INFORMATION FROM THE TAX COLLECTOR?
THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SENT IT TO THE TAX COLLECTOR OR VICE V ERSA ?
JUSTICE: THERE IS IN THE FILE A MEMAND A D A TED JUNE 14, 2000 , FROM MS. STRICKLAND, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY APPRAI SERS OFF ICE TO THE CLERKS OFFICE , THE DELINQUENT TAX REPRESENTATIVE IN THE TAX COLLECTORS OFFICE.EXCUSE ME. ASKING FOR INFORMATION, ANDTHE ONE AT ISSUE IS PL EASE PROVIDE THE MOST CURRENT ADD DRESES FOR THE -- ADDRESSFOR THE PROPERTY OWNER I F DIFFERENT FROM THE TAX ROLL, AND IF IT IS NOT CHEC KED NO , CHANGE. WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF WHY THIS DOCUMENT WAS SENT BETWEEN THOSE TWO GOVERNMENT AL DEPARTMENTS?
THERE WASN'T ANY.
JUSTICE: HOW MANY YEARSDID YOUR CL IENTS OWN THIS PROPERTY?
THEY PURCHASED IT IN 1996. THEY REFINANCED IT IN 1 9 97.
JUSTICE: DID THEY PAY THE TAXES FOR ANY YEA R?
IN 1996. AND ALL THE SUBSEQUENT TAXESWERE PAID .
JUSTICE: PARDON?
ALL OF THE SUBSEQUENT TAXES WERE PAID. THEY WERE J UST PAID LATE.THEY WERE PAID A FTER THEY FOUND OUT THAT THEY WERE UNPAID .
JUSTICE: AND YOU TOLD US THAT THERE WAS ONE YEAR THAT THEIR EXPLANATION FOR WHY THEY DIDN'T PAY WAS THAT THEY THOUGHT THE FINANCING COMPANY WAS GOING TO. WHAT WAS THEIR EXP LANATION FOR WHY THEY DIDN'T PAY THEOTHER YEARS?
WELL , THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHY THEY HADN'T RECEIVED ANY BILLS, SO THAT IS WHERE THEY , THAT IS WHERE THEY CA LLED AND TRIED TO FIND OUT WHERE THE BILLS WERE. AND AS SOON AS THEY FOUND OUT , THEY DID NOT KNOW , THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THEY WERE SE RVED WITH THE QUIET T ITLE ACTION , UN TIL AFTERTHEY GOT AN EV ICTION NOTICE , BECAUSE THEY WEREN'TPROPERLY SERVED PERSONALLY WITH THE QUIET TITLE ACTION , AND IT WASN'T UNTIL THEY GOTAN EVICTION NOTICE ON THEIR DOOR THAT THEY REALIZED THAT ANY OF THIS HAD HAPPENED.
CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU HAD SET FORTH IN FOOTNOTE TWO OF YOUR BRIEF , HOLD WHAT YOU DESCRIBE AS A COMEDY OF ERRORS THAT WERE SUBMITED BY OTHERS. YOU TA LK ABOUT THAT , WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION , THAT THE MORTGAGE COM PANY WASN'T GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY E ITHER.
THAT'S CORRECT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THE --
THEY ORIGINALLY FIN ANCED WITH FORD CREDIT IN 1996. THE MORTGAGE IN THE FORD C REDIT HAD FORD CREDIT'S ADDRESS ON IT. THEY REFI NANCED WITH FORD CREDIT IN 1997. IT HAD THE SAME ADDRESS ON IT BUT THE TITLE COMPANY CROSSED OFF THE ADDRESS. YOU COULD STILL SEE IT. IT WASN'T BLACKED OUT JUST AN X . YOU COULD STILL SEE IT BUT PUT THE TITLE COMPANY 'S ADDRESS THERE INSTEAD, SO THE TAX COLLECTOR DIDN'T FEEL THE NEED TO GIVE THE MORTGAGE COMPANY'S ADDRESSTO THE CL ERK TO SEND THE NOTICE TO , BECAUSE IT WASN'T O N THE MORT GAGE IS WHAT THEY SAID, AND NO OBLIGATION TO SEND IT TO THE TITLE COMPANY, SO THE MORTGAGE COMPANY DIDN'T GET NOTICE , EITHER , AND THE MORTGAGE COMPANY DIDN'T NOTIFY THE ROSADO S OBVIOUSLY , BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET NOTICE .
JUSTICE: AM I CORRECT THAT THE T RIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE ONLY REASON YOUR CLIENT DIDN'T REC EIVE THE NOTICE I S BECAUSE THE OFFICIALS DIDN'T HONOR THE LETTERS THAT NOTIFIED THE CHANGE. THAT WAS A FACTUAL FINDINGMADE BY THE TRIAL COURT.
YES, IT WAS. Y ES, IT WAS.
JUSTICE: WHAT IS THE REAL STATUS OF THIS NOW