Deborah Hamilton purchased a condominium unit in 1998, but did not pay the property taxes for that year or any subsequent year. The unit was sold for non-payment of taxes to Lynn’s Specialties, Inc., which subsequently conveyed its interest to Renewed Hope, Inc. Appellee. Pursuant to OCGA § 48-4-46 b, Appellee caused the sheriff to attempt to serve notice of foreclosure of the right to redeem on Ms. Hamilton at the address of the condo unit. The sheriff was unsuccessful and noted the following: “Diligent search made and Deborah Hamilton not to be found. . . . Deborah Hamilton owns this property but lives at another unknown location. Rents this property to another.” Appellee then caused the notice to be published as provided in OCGA § 48-4-46 c. After expiration of the time specified in the notice for redemption, Ms. Hamilton filed this declaratory judgment action seeking an order that she was still entitled to redeem the property. Appellee counterclaimed for a decree in quia timet pursuant to OCGA § § 23-3-40 et seq. that it held fee simple title to the property. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found that the uncontradicted evidence showed that the only address of Ms. Hamilton on file with the county tax authorities was that of the condo, and that neither Appellee nor its predecessor had any actual knowledge of, and the real estate records did not contain, any other address. In an extensive order, the trial court held that, when service is attempted at the most current address on file with the taxing authorities for the property and the address, if any, disclosed by the real estate records in the chain of title to the property, as well as any other addresses actually known to the tax deed purchaser, . . . no further extraordinary efforts to locate the delinquent taxpayer should be required. The trial court also rejected Ms. Hamilton’s facial constitutional challenge to the provision in OCGA § 48-4-46 c for service by publication where the sheriff is unable “for any reason” to effect service. In finding that service by publication of the notice of foreclosure of the right to redeem was reasonable under the circumstances, the trial court relied on the fact that it is the last official notification in a series of notices and proceedings which have already impaired the delinquent taxpayer’s property rights. Accordingly, the trial court denied Ms. Hamilton’s motion, granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee, and separately entered final judgment. Ms. Hamilton appeals from these orders.
If the name and address of an interested party can be reasonably ascertained, notice of a tax sale by publication does not meet the requirements of due process. Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams , 462 U. S. 791 103 SC 2706, 77 LE2d 180 1983. This Court has explicitly applied that holding to the notice of foreclosure of the right to redeem. Funderburke v. Kellet , 257 Ga. 822 1 364 SE2d 845 1988. Indeed, Funderburke quoted Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams , supra at 800 II, as follows: “Notice by mail or other means as certain to ensure actual notice is a minimum constitutional precondition to a proceeding which will adversely affect the liberty or property interests of any party . . . if its name and address are reasonably ascertainable.” Cit. Emphasis omitted. Funderburke v. Kellet , supra at 823 1. The rationale for applying this due process principle to the notice of foreclosure of the right to redeem is that notice of the tax sale or of the existence of the right to redeem “does not place an interested party on notice as to when the right to redeem will be foreclosed. Notice of the tax sale and notice of foreclosure of the right to redeem are distinct events.” Emphasis in original. Funderburke v. Kellet , supra at 824 1. See also In re Foreclosure of Liens for Delinquent Taxes , 607 NE2d 1160, 1163 II Ohio App. 1992; Frank S. Alexander, “Tax Liens, Tax Sales, and Due Process,” 75 Ind. L. J. 747, 781 IV A 2000.
