HomeMy WebLinkAboutCounty of Suffolk-parcel w/s of south harbor rd
Ip132 Pt352
SUFFOLK COUNTY
BARGAIN AND SALE DEED
J
'.'j:.)3G
{~-',
~\~\I. ~. ",..'0,. /
,,\ " "AND TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York
,!t/'~ !ill97l, party of the second part,
';.<,;! I'po'~(.i(a i:
~~~~~;l l~es~~~~~E~~~b~~ai1~~:1~85t~d~~t~~eb~i~h~ ~~f~~l~uC~~~~~ to
<l;,~",,,, ILegis 1ature on November 12, 1985 and thereafter, aPl?roved by the
---------- ilCounty Executive on November 23, 198~, in considerat~on of ten
DISTRICT i~ollars and other valuable consideration paid by the party of the
1000 Ilsecond part, does hereby grant and release unto the party of the
---------- i~econd part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of
SECTION I~he second part forever,
075.00 I:
---------- ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land with any
BLOCK buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate~ lying and
03.00 being in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk ana State of
---------- New York and acquired by Tax Deed on February 16 1982, from
LOT Jean H. tuthill, the County Treasurer of Suffolk County, New
014.000 York~ and recorded on February 16, 1982, in Liber 9143, Page 44
---------- on 4~, and otherwise known as and by Town of Southold. Sch
Dist. 5 N-M Hammond E-S Harbor La S-G J Wells W-W J Smith,
THIS INDENTURE, made the ::<7n,/cIayof 4,1'.lsl- ,1986
. : BETWEEN the COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, a municil?al corporation
,of the State of New York, having its princ~pal office at the
i:Suffolk County Center, Center Drive, Riverhead, New York 11901,
Iparty of the first part,
I
~.
'''\ "
'\ 'Ii TOGETHER with all right, title and interest, if any, of the
'rarty of the first part of, in and to any streets and roads
iabutting the above-aescribed premises to the center lines thereof;
"
TO~l1HER with the appurtenances and all the estate and
Tights of the party of the first part in and to said premises;
" I "'~ !par~M~~~e~~~~~~r~~e th~e~~l~~ g;r~~~c~~~g~~d a~t~s ~~~ns
! \ ',the party of the second part forever.
\ :
",!: SUBJECT to all covenants, restrictions and easements of
record, if any.
: AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section
13 of the Lien Law, hereby covenants that the party of the first
'part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will
inold the right to receive such cons ide "..WUlust fund to be
i1pplied first for the purpose of payi 'eo f _the
i~mprovement and will apply the same f ~~ ~t of the
:cost of the improvement before using any e total of the
'~ame for any other purpose.
THE WORD "PARTY" shall be construed as if it read "parties"
whenever the sense of this indenture so requires.
of
'In Presence Of:
IN WITNESS WRElEOF, the party of the first part has duly
executed this deed the day and year first above written.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, NEW YORK
BY''w~~
~r
Department of Real Estate
~,f'
~.
l-
t
,-
~,
f;~
6i~
'7836
.. Rr;.CEIVl:O '1""'7
$.....a:..........~._ 1 '
REAL ESTATE i
r't 25 1988
l' TRANSFER TAX
SUFFOLK
" COUNTY
'"
.
101$Pt353
I'
"
-.''''
,
" -,,,,,.,, ~ : ..
'., ..-..
",' ;"
Ii
!!
!i
IISTATE OF NEW YORK, CO . OF SUFFOLK
!Ion the c?c2~ay of 1986, before me personally came
i~obert E. Sgroi to me kno n, who, being by me duly sworn, did
iidepose and say that he resides at No. 51 Elm Street, Sayville, NY
::11782; that he is the Commissioner of the Department of Real
'[Estate of the County of Suffolk, New York, the municipal
'icorporation described in and which executed the foregoing
,[instrument; that he knows the seal of said corporation; that the
llseal affixed to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was
,Iso affixed by Resolution of the Suffolk County Legislature and that
:~e signed his name thereto by like order being Resolution 1123-
;i1985 thereof.
I!
@~~
~ otly Pu ~c
I
,
I
,
..LdI~""
1it=~rn~1
,BARGAIN AND SALE I)EED
. Without Covenant
;
:!
SUFFOLK COUNTY
TO
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECORD AND RETURN TO:
Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk
Town of Southord, Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
t" ;
I
2067 L- V)
I c .,.,
on r .....
c: ",
--; <-Yt
--; " .u ;u
~ - ,--
-- "'-~ .-- C,
:l!' .~ >- r',_'- 0
7 '.,'-1 --
'" ',":J
- " - N r~;
-- -,-', - Q
Z I' --",
-
,,--
'. . ~~-:
>-
I. ,
,'-;
.L
---~
.
JUDITH 1. TERRY
TOWN CU~RI(
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
Honorable Juliette Kinsella
Suffolk County Clerk
Suffolk County Center
Riverhead, New York 11901
Dear Mrs. Kinsella:
,.
.
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
Transmitted herewith for recording in your office is a Suffolk
County Bargain and Sale Deed to the Town of Southold. Also en-
closed is a check in the amount of $14.00 to cover the recording
fee.
j
...~~~'- -----.-- -_._--~
,~
"
..
>
:t 0
D. 5
a:a:x
::J 0 I-
:a:!!!5
>",
.a:
-,wu.
~~o
Z '" z
<C ~
a: l-
LL
"
..
j
I
1
~
~
cfNOI?J1!..CPO/{l(
BANK ....TRUST Ca
SOUTHOLO, L. I., N. Y. 11911
PAY
TO THE
ORDER OF
/
..L~~-<CA.
. -"
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
September 10, 1986
Very truly yours,
.,-/~'
#c/~0~;Y-
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
,
/)
L?u-~
4....>". /c'
/
{!&.-c.F....
--;~"---~~;-~-~~~~J---~~-~:~:~--L_iL '
FOR S",
/"/';<<.6'<--., rr<:l -,';C.
1:0 2l. 1,07 'H 21: lI'O:l I,"':l 2BB 7
.11'
11'00 I, 5 7011'
4570
50-791/214
_.19 J'C
1$ /;/
~,
/"'0
DOLLARS'
I
'~
,.
.",,_._...--,~...
GENERAL FUND WHOLE,TOWN
,
.
-- .-
- -' .
.
. - ,
, , I :...; i
',t - ':: 'l. 3. ..~:e
-..- :~':,:~.',;,,"~;,~d
.l~-j. :~;:~-;:~~:;;;C~
/-3"::':.:,:::-; C? G,:...~?..:':.~.:::,,___.!..:.
;:-:!-2., ??C'?:::?::' -:7_~~.'::::::. .;.':.:~:S :-..:..-X
ST.!.T':: 0: ~~::....' YO?,-~ )
) ss:
CO'.J:.l'Y 0: SUFFOLK )
-\"---..
.:.;.....:..11
Tax I'lap 1\'0_
/CCCJ-t:) 7.S-: CJtJ- tJ.s.CtJ- C'/~C~
I, i&"h/ il;oLe7r
-'~....~"...-., -1"---1. - ~-. -t--p
.....<::....J'-~J LIH:,,-. ~L<.l Ld_
Tax L2-...~.
, being duly 5'.'0,,,. deposes 2::10 52:)'S u~,der pe:1elry of
-A'~"";;j~ of ~~. of 'Real Estate
Title Gcve, ,~:e"t2:1 E:lti ty
t..-,e (t:-"nsferee) (tr2:ls:eror) of'the re2:1 pro?e~~y listed belD'~; th~t it is true
to the. k"c~ledge of the affi2:nt that the g2:i" c" e2:ch such tr2:nsfer is exe=pt fre",
the T2:x c~ Gains Derived Fro", Certain Real ?rc?erty Transfers i~posed by Article 31-"
- , - T. , . h' - :, : ~ 1
or t"e "ax u?",' oy reasoL) tnat eac, suc" L,a:1s.e:- "-s a. tra"s.e:- 0,- l:'ea Pl:'operty the
CO:1side,ation for ;.;hich is less tha" five hu;odred thous.ond dOllars alOd "'hich is'
neit~er (A) uursuant to a coocerative or co;odo~lniu", claD, nor (3) a nartial or
" . "
successive tra~sfer pursuant to a p1a~ to effectuate by )Oarti2:1 or successl'/e tr2:usfe
a ~ra:1szer '..hieh \..'ou1d Other<:ise be included in the eove:-age of ;.rtiele 31-3 of the
County of
Sut
Na=e(s) of Grantor
Acd~ess of ?roDert~
Consideration Zor Tr2TIsfcr
or ~~ount of Ozfer
1.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ivj:r0 Sdift7f &.f'B,q" R~
h'//,f.y. ' rol7' 5/& /11/,1/;; R~
.7,:J?/~L4 41. Y
~~,5-';/. 7~
2.
3.
... 4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.'
~uffolk County Dept. of Real Estate
Goverr~ental Entity
/I pi f4' ./- ,,/
By P!f;ftr{,. / ~.'"
(Tit,f1!)Agen , Dept.o~. Hea~ ;tate _ /J ~.
Subscribed a:1d s','orn betore De tnls ,.:;If dzy or _!it -.::-
, I,
. 19,&.
r"O~y~L ?'~~'~ ft'
" J r.:\ u3"LLC'
COL:l\IT 0: SUFFOLK
57.!..7:: 0: ~~E:'...' "iO?J(
1IDrAIY'=::::" ,art
~ ~ Ha. 4782491
rn&pN MftIt,30. 1951
7:-:E:se
S:c:e::e:-I'.:s 2:-e
:-;-.2 ce
'~.: r:.
L :-1 e
J:;;o'~'l €: C f-=
.....;:;..
~ ~i21~~!!y false
:E?:eSE~:2r:c~ is
~~~2~:~~ 2~: :s r~~is~2ble 2S ~he
"c
..
c~:~e of ~~:j~:y ~~~e~ A::ic}e ::0 of t~e ?e~21
~2"".
~s c~~:~a~:~ ~~St ~e fi!e~
~::;~~:~. ::a~s~e::e~ is lcca;ec.
'~':': :-:
;::-.2:
:ecc:c:.:-.;
~ ~ . '.
c:::.ce: c: :::E
c:',.;;-:.:v
"'::-Ie:e.::,
::;€
! A FaA CO}JNTY USE ONL Y
1. SWIS Code
-'--...J
.~c .
,4 i
, .
.j. '"
.' ,
~ ,
~ ."",,,,,' J
STATE OF NEW YORK
5T A TE BOARD OF EQUAl1ZA liON AND ASSESSMENT
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT
.
/
/
2. Date Deed Recorded
3. Book '------l
4 Page
EA-5217
Rev. 2/85
c~~~~~~ 5 9 2 9 2 7 4
; B IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION
Town of Southold
City or Town
Southold
Village
1 Property
Location
Street Number
west side of South Harbor Road
Street Name
11971
Zip Code
2 Buyer Name
Town of Southold
Last Name
First Name
3 Buyer Address
53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971
Buyer Address
4. Buyer's Attorney I
Robert W. Tasker
Name
(516) 477-1400
Telephone Number
S, Seiter Name
County of Suffolk
Last Name
[2[] Same as Buyer Address
D Same as Property Location
First Name
o Other (Specify Below)
6. Tax Billing
Address
108 ft. X 209 ft.
Street Name and Number
City or Town
State
Zip Code
7. Deed
Property Size
lor I
Acres
Dimensions
B.School I
District Name I Southo d
I C ASSESSMENT INFORMATION (Data should be taken from the latest final assessment roll)
1. Enter the year of the assessment roll from which t.8...i6.J
the information was taken
2. Check the box indicating the number of parcels
which sold
[X] One Parcel D More Than One Parcel {Specify)1
o (lnly Part of a Parcel
3. Enter the total assessed value (of at! parcels in the sale)
$800.00
4. Enter the tax map identifier of the parcel.
(If more than one. tist on a separate sheet)
075.00
Section
03.00
014.000
Block
Lot
5. Enter the roit identifier if different from tax map identifier.
I D PROPERTY USE INFORMA.TION
1. Check the box in the Property Use
Table which most accurately
describes the use of the
property at the time of sale.
2. Is the sale of a condominium or
a cooperative?
o Yes [Xl No
PROPERTY USE TABLE
R Agricultural 6 ~ Community Service
2 ~ 1.2.3 Family Residential 4A ~ Comme,ci" 7 Industrial
3A Residential Vacant Land 48 Apartment 8 PubliC Service
3B Non-Residential Vacant Land 5 Entertainment/Amusement 9 Forest
! E SALE INFORMATION
1. Date of Sale
I 8 / 22 / 86
5. IS this an arm's length sale? lKJ Yes D No
2. State the Full Sales Price.
$
o
6. Check all of the conditions below that apply to thiS sale
A
B
C
U
F X
A
T
G
Land Contract Sale (Specify Contract Date)
/
/
(Full Sales Price IS the total amount paid for the property. including
personal property. This payment may be in the form of cash, other
property or goods. or the assumption of mortgages or other obligations.)
Sale Between Relatives
Sale Between Related Companies or Partners In BUSiness
3. Was there personal property in e)(cess 0 IVl
of $500 inCluded in this sale? Yes ~ No
Sale Contract executed more than one year prior to the Date 01 Sale
4 If yes. indicate the value of the personal $
property Included in the sale
Buyer or Seller is a Government Agency or a Lendmg Institution
Deed Type is not Warranty or Bargain and Sale (Specify Deed Type) I
Interest conveyed is not a fee (Specify Interest)
Other unusual factors affecting sale price (Specify)
I F CERTIFICATION
Signature
~~'~:~ne ,(516 ) 765-1800
of Southold
Date I 9/3/86
I certify that all the items of information
entered on this transfer form are true and correct
(to the best of my knowledge and belief) and I
understand that the making of any willful false
statement of material fact herein will subject me
to the provisions of the penal law relative to the
making and filing of false instruments
Name
(Print or Type)
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT-EA-5217
FILING INSTRUCTIONS
1. Before completing this form, read the detailed instructions
on the reverse side,
2, A deed may not be accepted for recording unless this form
is legible and complete, All entries must be typed or clearly
printed in black ballpoint pen, Please press hard, Four
copies are being made.
3, This form must be completed by the buyer or the seller or
an agent with personal knowledge of the transaction,
.'
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
PETER F. COHALAN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
ROBERT E. SGROI
COMMISSIONER
April 11, 1986
Francis J. Murphy,
Town ot Southold
53095 Main Rd.
Southo1d, New York
Supervisor
Re:
Tax Map
TOWN OF
11971
No. 1000-075.00-03.00-014.000
SOUTHOLD
Dear Mr. Murphy:
We are pleased to enclose herewith a Bargain &
~ OJ.;) 19!'C, ,and duly executed by
Kea s a e, tdereoy transterring title to the
together with the Transter Gains Tax Attidavit
Equalization torm.
For your protection, we suggest that you record this instrument
immediately in order to give notice that you are the owner ot
record. To record this deed, the Transter Gains Tax Attidavit and
State Equalization torm must be submitted together with the deed
to the County Clerk's Ottice.
Sale Deed, dated
the Commissioner ot
named owner,
and State
Very truly yours,
p.~
JEM:JAB:ma
~John E. McPartlin
Pro2erty Management
(516)348-4519
Administrator
Enclosure
CERTIFIED MAIL/RR P 077 053 282
pc w/Deed:
Hon. Jean H. Tuthill, County Treasurer
Frank Diamante, Director
Real Property Tax Service Agency
James Patterson, Insurance Manager
Insurance & R1sk Unit
Walter l)epkin
Department ot Public Works
Charles C. Wattsi Assessor
Town ot Southo d
Accounting Unit
Pat Cano
pc:
AUC/20
10 OVAL DRIVE
HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK 11788
(516) 348-4544
"
.'
.
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN C'LFR,K
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
" '
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JULY 1, 1986:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
advances $2,521.75 to the Community Development fund, from General
Fund Whole Town Budget, for the purchase of a Suffolk County Tax
Sale parcel: 1000-075-03-014, located at South Harbor Road, Southold.
/7:,d'd-t~ij--
~udith T. Terry ()' .
Southold Town Clerk
July 2, 1986
"
.
-y@
.
,
.
j
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
PETER F. COHAL.AN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
ROBERT E. SGROI
COMMISSIONER
Hay 15, 1986
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Attention: Mr. McMann
Re: 1000-075-03-014
Dear Sir:
This is a follow up of our letter to you on February 11, 1986,
whereby we advised you that we have approved a resolution
authorizing us to transfer the above captioned parcel to the Town
of Southold. In my letter to you I quoted the price necessary for
this transfer was S2,454.45. Since a period of time has gone by
and interest and penalties are accruing, the new amount is $2,521.72
This amount is good up until July 20, 1986.
I suggest that you try to culminate this sale as quickly as
possible so that the Town is not forced to pay higher interest and
penalties.
Very truly yours,
f. fA-
ti~
JL:dr
Phyllis M. Haner
Auction/Sales Unit
(516)348-4533
10 OVAL ORIVE
HAUPPAUGE. NEW YORK 11788
15161348_4544
\
.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
PETER F. COHALAN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
ROBERT E. SGROI
COMM!SSIONER
February 11, 1986
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
11971
j04-<f fttof&1 0/
~1J/ IIfJ72/;O~ ~tl- '5U' T ft.
1000-075.00-03.00-014.000 ;::;:'fvJ .;2/1 y/ tf(P
Attention:
Mr. Mcllahon
Re:
Tax Map No.
Dear Mr. McMahon:
Please be advised that the Suffolk County Department of Real
Estate has a signed and approved resolution for the above
mentioned parcel. At this time, we require a check made payanle
to the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate in the amount of
$2,295.94 plus $158.51 for the 1985/86 tax bill that is now due
for a total of $2,454.45. Upon receipt of said check, the County
will be able to transfer the property to the Town of Southold.
If you have any questions concerning the above matter, please do
not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
~M6~
JAB:ma
Joseph A. Besemer
Auction/Sales Unit
(516)348-4551
10 OVAL DRIVE
HAUPPAUGE. NEW YORK I 1788
t~ 1 6) 348-4~44
, . ,
"tt',~~#
. , ~
... ,
.
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
11f%' - Cj,'OO IIflt.
Town Hall, 53095 Main Ro'
P.O. Box 728
Southold. New York 1197
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOllOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTHOlD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 7, 1985:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes
and directs Supervisor Francis J. Murphy to apply to the Suffolk County
Department of Real Estate for the purchase of the following three parcels
of property being offered for tax sale, using Community Development Funds,
for the development of these properties to benefit the housing needs of
low /moderate income residents of the Town of Southold:
1000-075-3-14, South Harbor Road, Southold - $2,100.00
1000-048-2-24, Flint Street, Greenport - $1,000.00
1000-048-2-26, Flint Street, Greenport - $1,000.00
r _/~.
/ .--/ ~->..,~..o .
//" .9:/f:/:I'::-i <../'(-----c;.::'/p/--7--
, )udith T. Terry,'
Southold Town Clerk
August 9, 1985
""\ '0'"
<> ~
"" <>
~"
,
,.
,."..1'"
.->
"
.
.
"
.
~
~
e
'"
"
< '
::!
" "
.
'"
,--
.o^""
." u
~.
.
.
.
~
.
!
. ~'."
~
.
"
. ~
.
-
'"
.
~
.
.
..
E
~
e
oil.. ~
.
~-
'!,
'.
~
o. ~
';.
0:.
"
0:.
e
~:
~...~ ~
.. .
.0
l! ~ i
"
"-"oJ
"
"
.
.
;;
.
r
:::l
.0
~.
.:
.".
inO
',;""~
80.
"io
-01--'.1
'!, ~
'. ~
.
~-
eEl
~.~" '
"
'.r' 1.f1,1~
o.:,~~
J I: I
L~~-
- .
"'JOt ue t
i
I
71. ---=-
I
..
~~
....- ,. -..-
_..-. . .....::-..:~~-..~-' ., " ...
--~
:..&..... J::'~""",,~~:!"'~
'-."l ...A'l1J~"",-;Il' _
" ~..._-~ _.....~;~~~::
~.,... f"r'-_/~"~.',,,,_,
-~. . "-.I~ ~__
11:-
~.
yrB
ROBERTW.TASKER
Town Attorney
OFFICE OF TOWN ATTORNEY
TOWN OF SOUTH OLD
TELEPHONE
(516) 477-1400
RECBVED
OCT 1 81965
425 MAIN ST.
GREENPORT, L.I., NEW YORK 11944
October 15, 1985
T.... CI.... SouthoId
Hon. Judith T. Terry
Town Clerk
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Judy:
As you know, the Town Board is interested in acqUIring three parcels of
real property from the Suffolk County Real Property Agency which were
acquired by the agency from the County Treasurer pursuant to tax sales.
One of the parcels is located on the west side of South Harbor Road at
Southold, and is shown on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000,
Section 75, Block 3, Lot 75. This parcel was formerly owned by Stanley J.
Zurek and Clementine Jane Zurek and was sold for unpaid taxes for the
1977-78 tax year. As I advised the Town Board, the title company will not
insure against any claim or liability that may be made by the previous
owners on the basis of a United States Supreme Court case Mennonite
Board of Missions v. Adams (decided in 1983). This case held that posting
and publication of a notice of tax sale did not meet the requirements of the
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S.
Constitution. The title company also returned in its report of title an
outstanding mortgage held by the Commissioner of Social Services of
Suffolk County dated June 30, 1975 and recorded in Liber 7392 of
mortgages at page 192. The mortgage was given by Clementine Jane Zurek
to the Social Services Department of Suffolk County. The mortgage does
not indicate thereon the amount of the mortgage. This amount would have
to be ascertained by contacting the Social Services Department.
In light of the foregoing, the Town Board may well decide not to proceed
with the acquisition of this parcel.
The other two parcels involve lots on Linnet Street known as lots 79 and
83 on the map of Greenport Driving Park filed as map No. 369. These lots
are shown as District 1000, Section 48, Block 2, Lots 24 & 26. With
respect to tax map lot 24, this was formerly owned by Pauline E. Thurlow
and was sold for taxes in the tax year 1978-79. The County Treasurer
conveyed this lot to the Suffolk County Real Property Agency by deed
recorded on February 8, 1983. The title company will not insure this title
until three years have passed since the date of the recording of the deed
from the County Treasurer to the County Real Property Agency, i. e.,
February 8, 1986.
.."
.
"
-2-
With respect to Tax Map Lot 26, the County Treasurer conveyed this lot to
the Suffolk County Real Property Agency by deed recorded March 2, 1984.
The title company will not insure title to this lot until three years have
passed since the recording of the County Treasurer's deed, i.e., March 2,
1987.
The reason why the title company will not insure the latter two titles for
three years is that Section 53 of the Suffolk County Tax Act provides that
every conveyance from the County Treasurer shall be presumptive
evidence that the sale was regular and that all proceedings prior to the
sale were likewise in conformance with the applicable provisions of law.
This section further provides that three years after the recording of the
County Treasurer's deed such presumption of regularity shall be
conclusive.
I would ask that you make copies of this letter available to the Town
Board members in order that they may be apprised of all of the questions
concerning the titles to the properties in question before making a
determination of whether or not they wish to proceed, notwithstanding the
legal impediments outlined above which may make it impossible for the
Town to convey a good and marketable title to the parcels in question.
For your information; lamericlosing herewith a copy of the Mennonite' case
for the information of the Town Board members.
Yours very truly,
~U/.~
ROBERT W. TASKER
RWT:aa
enc.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
PETER F. COHALAN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
ROBERT E. SGROI
COMMISSIONER
Hon. Francis J. Murphy
Supervisor
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
August 16, 1985
D rn: (b rn: D~
PUG 2 I /985
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Re: 1000-075-3-14 - 1000-048-2-24 - 1000-048-2-26
Dear Supervisor Murphy:
In response to your letter of August 12, 1985,
regarding 3 parcels of land which the town would like to purchase,
please be advised that I have forwarded your request to Joseph
Besemer who handles 72-h requests for municipalities throughout
Suffolk County.
I have instructed Mr. Besemer to contact you if he has
any questions regarding the resolution that your Town Board
adopted on August 7th. Hoping this meets with your approval.
V~U1Y yours,
MA.y
commis~~
RES:bb
Orig.
Co~ies <-r.~~ ~
10 OVAL DRIVE
HAU~F>"'UGE. NEW YORK 1 1 788
(:5 161 34B-4!544
Ad.. Date
File ;:r:-/ u c--
e-C-- . ,
,
. .
RECEIVED
COPY FOR YOUR
mraRMATlON
ROBERT W. TASKER
Town Attorney
TELEPHONE
(516) 477.1400
I AUG 2 91S3:)
August 28, 1985
Town Clerk Southold
Title Guarantee Co.
1100 W. Main Street
R iverhead, N ew York 11901
Dear Sir:
The Town of Southold is contemplating the acquisition of three parcels
of property located in the Town of Southold, which parcels are to be
conveyed to the Town from the SuffolkCourity Real Property Agency.
All three parcels were acquired by the County of Suffolk through tax
deeds.
On behalf of the Town of Southold, I wish to order fee policies in the
amount of $10,000.00 on. the above mentioned three parcels of land,
: which are briefly 'described as follows:
1. A parcel of land located on the west side of South Harbor Road at
Southold and shown on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District",.
- :'1000, Section 075, Block 3, Lot 111.'
2. A parcel on the south side of Flint Street near the Incorporated
Village of Greenport and shown on the Suffolk County Tax Map as
District 1000, Section 0118, Block 2, Lot 24.
3. A parcel also on the south side of Flint Street near the
Incorporated Village of Greenport and shown on the Suffolk County
Tax Map as District 1000, Section 0118, Block 2, Lot 26.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter will you please
contact me.
Yours very truly,
~w~
ROBERT W. TASKER
Ry, r;a
, '
MENNONITE BOARD OF MISSIONS:
Appellant
..
Richard C. ADAMS.
No. 82-11.
Argued March 3D, 1983.
Decided June 22, 1983.
Purchaser of eroperty at tax sale
brollght suit to quiet title. The Superior
Court, Elkhart County, Indiana, quieted ti-
tle to the purchaser. The mortgagee ap-
pealed and the Indiana Court of Appeal.,
Third District, affirmed, 427 N.E.2d 686.
The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdic-
tion. The Supreme Court, Justice Marshall,
held that: (1) notice by mail or other means
88 certain to insure actual notice is mini-
mum constitutional preCOndition to proceed-
ing which will advenely affect liberty or
property interests of any party, whether
unlettered or well venM.d in commercial
practice, if its name and address are reason-
ably ascertainable; (2) mortgagee's knowl-
edge of delinquency in pAyment of tax.. is
not equivalent to notice that tax sale is
pending; and (8) notice as required under
Indiana statute, by posting and publishing
announcement of tax aale an~ mAHini' no,.
tice to mortga""'hy ....rt.ified mail, did not
meet reQuiremenlM of due pl'Oee8l clause of
the Fo.urteentb Amen.!lment.
, Reversed and remanded.
Ju.tice' O'Connor, dissented and filed
opinion in which Justice Powell and Ju.tice
Rehnquist joined.
1. Constitutional La... -277(2), 285
Under Indiana law, mortgagee possess-
e. substantial property interest that is sig.
nificantly affected by tax .ale, and .ince he
has legally protected property interest, he is
constitutionally entitled to notice reason-
ably calculated to apprise him of pendin~
tax sale. IC 6-1.1-24-1 et seq., 6-1.1-24-3,
6-1.1-24-4, 6-1.1-24-4.2, 6-1.1-24-6, 6-1.-
!'iii'
~.tll,...
~.l'~rj,j
I. I ,
l. ....' J \" " 'I
2.'>-6, 3~ 11-4, 32-8-11-7 (1982 Ed.);
U.S.C.A. ConsLAmend. 14.
2. Taxation -615, 658(3), 660
When mortgagee of property which is
suhject of pending tax sale is identified in
mortgage that is pu bliely 'recorded, con-
structive notice by publication must be sup-
plemented by notice mailed to mortgagor's
last known available address, or by personal
service, and unless mortgagee is not reason.
ably identifiahle, ~nstructive notice alone
does not satisfy rotIstitutional require-
ments. IC 6-1.I-z,t-1 et seq., 6-1.1-24--.'l,
6-1.1-24-4, 6-1.1-25--4(d). 6-1.1-25-14, 6-
1.1-25-16, 32-S-.l1-4, 32-8-11-7 (1982
Ed.); U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.
3. Taxation _658(3)
County's use of publication and post-
ing, or mailed notice to property owner, is
not reasonable means of notice, to mortga-
gee, of pending tax sale, and personal ser-
vice or mailed notice is constitutionally re-
quired even though sophisticated creditOrs
have means at their disposal to discover
whether property taxes have not been paid
and whether ta.. sale proceedings are there-
fore likely to be initiated. IC 6-1.1-24-4,
6-1.1-25-4(d), 6-1.1-25-14, 6-11-25-16,
32-8-11-4, 32-8-11-7 (1982 Ed.); U.S.G.A.
ConstAmend. 14. ' '
4. Constitutional Law -255(1), 278(1.1)
Although particularly extensive efforts
to provide notice may often be required
when state is aware of an interested party's
inexperience or incompetence. party's abili-
ty to take steps to safeguard its interests
d""s not relieve state of constitutional obli.
gation to give notice of proceeding which
will advel'3ely affect liberty or property in-
terests. IC 6-1.1-24-4, 6-1.1-~(d), 6-1.-
1-25-14, 6-1.1..2S-16, 32-8-11-4, 32-8-
11-7 (1982 Ed.); U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. H.
II
5. Constitutional Law -255(1), 27B(lJl)
Nolice by rnnil or olher means IUJ' cer-
tain to in8ure nctuaJ notten is minimum
'4 , ". '!j, lIi""Il1;~.... \-. 1\1),\[11:,
Ctt. 11110.1 S.CL 271M (ItU)
constitutional precondition to proceeding during this period, the lax sale pun:h""er
which will adversely affect liberty or prop- may apply for a deed W the property, but
erty intere.ts of any party, whether unlet: . before the deed is executed Jhe county audi-
l<>red or well versed in commen:ial practice, tor must notif)' the former owner that he is
if its name and address are reasonahly a.,- entitled to redeem the property. If the
certainahle. IC &-1./-24--4, &-1./-2.'>--4(d), property is not redecmed within 30 daya,
&-1./-2.)..14, &-1./-2.)..16, 32-S--1l--4, 32-S-- the county auditor may then execute a deed
1l~7 (1982 Ed.); V.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. to the pun:haser who then acquires an es-
late in fee simple, frec and c/ear of all lien.
and may bring an acti~n to quiet title:
Property On "'hich appellant held a mort-
gage Was sold to appel.e for nonpayment
of laxes. Appellant w~ hot notified of the
pending sale and did not learn of the sale
until more than two, years later, by which
! time the redemption period had TUn and the
mortgagor still owed appellant money on
the mortgage. Appellee then filed suit in
slate COurt seeking to quiet title to the
property. The court upheld the lax sale
slatute against appellant's contention that
it had not received constitutionallv aste-
quate notice of th.e.~rurrng.ta.\csalJLandryf
Its opportunity to redeem the property af-
ter the sale. The Indiana Court of Appeals
affirmed. ,
Held: The manner of notice Provided} !
to appellant did not meet the requirements I
of the Due Process Clause of the Four-
SylJabus' teenth Amendment. PI'. 2709-2712.
An Indiana slatute requires the county' (a) Prior to an action that will affeet
auditor to post notice in the county court- an interest in life, liherty, or property pro-
house of the sale of real .property for non- tected by the Due Process Clau,"" a Slate
payment of propefty taxes and to puhlish must provide "notice reasonahly calculated,
notiC.f!.once each week for three conse e utive~ under.~" circumstances, to apPriS. e interest-
week.. Notice by certified mail must be ed partIes of the pendency of the action and
given to the property owner, but at thp afford them an opportunity to present their
time in questiOn in this case there was no ohjections." Notice by publication is not
provision for notice by mail or personal' reason'!!J.lv calculau,d to inform ~
servlce.to mortgagees of the~v~.The .! parties "'ho can be notified by more effee-
purchaser at a tax sale acquires a certifi.r J tivc means such ~__ ~rsonal ,service .QL.
cate of sale that constitutes a lien againsl maileQ--'!Qlice. Mullane I'. Central Hano"cr
the property for the amount paid and is Bimk & Trust C"., 339 U.S. 306. 314, 70
;uperior to all prior lien... The lax sale is S.Ct. G52, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865. Pp. 2709-
.ollowed by a 2-)'ear period during which 2710. . , Ii
he owner or mortgagee may redeem the I (b) Sine.., a mortgagee clearly has a "I,
.roperty. If no one redeem. the property Ilegally protected property interest, he is I' '
1
thp rl"ader. Sf'(' Unitf'd StatrJ v. Detroit Lum.
bfot Co. 200 U.s. 321, .1.17, 26 S.Ct. 282, 287. 50
LEd. 499.
6. Taxation "='658(3)
Mortgagee'. knowledge of delinquency
in pa)""ent of tax", .;. not equivalent to
'lotice that tax sale is pending. IC &-1.1-
24-1 et seq. (1982 Ed.).
7. Constitutional La" -285
Taxation -615
Manner of notice of lax .ale provided
mortgagee under Indiana law by po.ting
and publishing announcement of lax sale
and by mailing notice to mortgagor by cer-
tified mail did not meet requirements of
due procesa clau.e of Fourteenth Amend_
ment. IC &-1.1-24-1 et seq., &-1.1-24-3.
&-1.1-24--4, &-1./ -25-4( d), &-1./ -24--4.2, &-
1.1-24-5, &-1.1-24-9, &-1.1-2.)..1 to &-1./-
2.S--J, &-1./-25-6, &-1.1-2.)..14, &-1.1-2.)..16,
32-S--11-<t, 32-S--11-7 (1982 Ed.); V.S.C.A.
Const.Amend. 14.
The syllabus com tit utes no PllIrt of the opJnion
of tht Court but has been pr('pnr~ by the
Reporter of Dt"Clslons for the convenience of
I:;/VI
If
"
'rl
I~ I
It
.I,
t.!!
1;.1:
I -il~'
C'f1litJ.;oto notice ",,,-,onahly calculaWd to
apprise him of . pending tax Ra1e. Con-.
Rtructive notice to a mortgagee who is iden-
tified in the p~hlic record dOCll not satisf)i
the due process requirement of Mullane.
Neither notice by publication and posting
nor mailed notice to the property owner arc
means ",ueh as one desirous of actually
informing the [mortgagee] might reason.
ably adopt to n.cOmpli,h it.." Mullane, suo
pra, at '315, 70 S.Ct.., at 657.. Pel'!lOnal set.
\ vice or notice by mail is req.uired even
i thoug~ sophisti""ted creditors ha"" means
\ at their disposal to discover whether proper.
ty taxes have not been paid and whether
tax sale proceedings are therefore likely to
I be initiated. PI'. 2710-2712.
Ind.App., 427 N.E.2d 686, reversed and
remanded.
William J. Cohen, Elkhart, Ind., for ap-
pellant.
Robert W. Miller, Elkhart, Ind., far appel.
lee.
MARSHALL, Justice.
Thi, appeal raises the question whether
notice hy publication and posting provides a
mortgagee of real property with adequate
notice of a proceeding to sell the mortgaged
'"property for nonpayment of taxes..
I ' .
I
To 'ecure an obligation to pay $14,000,
Alfred Jean Moore executed a mortgage in .
favor of appellant Mennonite Board of lIlis-
sion, (MBIIl) on property in Elkhart, Indi-
ana, that lIloore had purchased from IIlEIIl.
The mortgage was recorded i~ the Elkhart
County Recorder', Office on March I, 1973.
Under. the terms of the agreement, Moore
1. Because a mortgag~ has no tille to the mort-
gaged property under Indiana law, the mortga~
gef' is not considered an "owner" for purposes
of ~ 6-1.1-24--4. FEnt S.''ings & Loan Assn.
ofCentraJ lndi~. v. Furnish. 174 Jnd.App. 265.
367 N.E.2d 596. 600. n. 14 (Ind.App.1977).
'. lod.Cod. ~ 6-1.1-24.~.2. Idd.d In 1980, pro-
. vtdu for notice by certKled mall to any mortfiJ:a-
was ",",ponsi!>le for paying all of the proper-
ty taxes. Without MBM', knowledge, how-
ever, ,he failed to pay taxes on the proper-
ty.
Indiana law provides for the annual sale
of real property on which payments of
property taxes have been delinquent for
fifteen months or longer. Ind.Code ~ &--1..
1-24.-1 et seq. Prior to the sale, tbe couoty
auditor must post notice in the county
courthouse and publish notice once each
week for three consecutive week,. ~ &--1.-
1-2oh'l. The owner of thi property is enti.
tied to notice hy certified mail to his I,,-,t
known address. r &--1.1-24--4.' Until
1980, however, Indiaoa law did not provide
for notice by mail 'or personal service to
mortgagees of property that was to be sold .
for nonpayment of taxes.'
AIter the requircd notice is provided, the
county treasurer holds a public auction at
which the real property is sold to the high.
est bidder. ~ &--1.1-24-5. The purchaser
acquires a certificate of ,ale which "Oosti.
tutes a lien agai nst the real property for
the entire amount paid. ~ &--1.1-24-9.
Thi, lien is superior to all other liens
against the property which existed at the
time the certificate was issued. Ibid.
The tax sale is followed by a two-year
redemption period during which the "own-
er, occupant, lienholder, or other penlon
who has an interest in" the property may
redeem the property. ~ &--1.1-25-1. To
redeem the property an individual must pay
the county treasurer a sum sufficient to
cover the purchase price of the property at
the tax sale, the amount of taxes and spe-
cial assessments paid by the purchaser fol-
IOlVing the sale, plus an additional percent-
age specified in the statute. ~~ &-1.1-25-
2, &--1.1-2.'HI. The county in turn remits
c
~
!~
a.
.'~
j
~
~.
ii.
'"'
:~I:
, I
" ~
'f
(~
,r-Q't
','.it.-
~;
I'.;
,
., ,
;..
..'
.r.::
~1~, .
.,\
I
,J
l)
.
i
.~ ,
'~
~~~
. J.t
~ .
.
'1
J:t't" of real property which is subjed to tax sale
proceedings, if the mortgagee has annually re-I
quested such notice and has agreed to pay a
fee. not to exceed $10. to cover the cost i
' sending noUce. Because the f'vents in questio '
in thls case occurred before the J 980 amen 1
ment, the, COI\8UtuUonality of the amendmentl'.
not before us. I
~ I
.,
,
'I
-I
I
MENNONITE BD. OF MISSIONS v, ADAMS
Clte-.s 103 S.Cl. 27011 018.1)
the payment to lhe purchaser of the proper. In November 1979, Adams filed a suit in
ty at the tax .ale. .. state court seek in/( to quiet title to the
If no one redeems the property during property. In opp<"ition to Adams' motion
the statutory redemption period, the pur. for summary jUrlg-ment, MBM contended
chaser may apply to the county auditor for that it had not received constitutionally ad-
a deed to the property. Before executing equate notice of the pending tax sale and of
and delivering the deed, the county auditor the opportunity to redeem the property fol.
must notify the former owner that he is lowing the tax sale. The trial court upheld
still ~ntitled to redeem the property. the Indiana tax sale 'statute against this
]} 9 &-p-2.'Hi. No noti!!e to the mortgagee constitutional chall~nge. The Indiana
. is required. If the property is not re- Court of Appeals afflrm,ltJ. 427 N.E.2d 686
deemed within thirty days, the county audi- . (1981). We nowd pr~bable jurisdiction, _
tor may then exeeute and deliver a deed for U.S. -, 103 S.CI. 204, 7,4 L.Ed.2d 164
the property. 91>--1.1-2.>--14. 'lhe previous (1982), and we now,reverse.
4, who thereby acquires "an estate in fee
simple ahsolute, free and clear of all. liens
and encumbrances." 9 1>--1.1-25--4(d).
After obtaining a deed, the purchaser
may initiate an action to quiet his tille to
the property'. 9 6.1.1-2.>--14. The previous
owner, lienholders, and others who claim to
have an interest in the property may no
longer redeem the property. They may de-
feat the title conveyed by the tax deed only
by proving, inter alia, lhat the property had
not been subject to, or assessed for, the.
taxes for which it was sold, that the taxes
had been paid before the sale, or that the
property was properly redeemed before the
-deed was executed. 9I>--U-2.>--16.
In 1977 Elkhart County initiated proceed-
ings to sell Moore's property for nonpa)'-
ment of taxes. 'The County' provided notice.
a.. required under the statute: it posted and
pu'blished an innouncement of the ta... sale
Md mailed notice to Moore by c'-rtified
mail. MSM was not informed of ; >end-
ing tax sale either by lh~ county 8(H.,;or or
by Moore. The property was sold for
$1,167.75 to appellee Richard Adams on Au-
gust 8, 1977. Neither Moore nor MBM ap-
peared at the sale or look steps thereafter
to redeem the property. FOllowing the sale
of her property, Moore continued to make
pay'ments each month to MBM, and asa
result MSM did not realize that the proper-
ty had been BOld. On AUgll.t 16, 1979,
M BM first learned of the tax sale., By then
the. redemption period had run l.nd Moore
.till owed appellant t'l.2:17.19.
270~~
.' ,-
II
C In Mullane v. Central Hano"er Bank &
Trust Co., 339 U.S 306, 314, 70 S.CI. 652,
657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), this Court recog-
nized that prior to an action which will
affect an interest in life, liberty, or proper-
ty protected by the Due ProcessClau'e of
the Fourteenth Amendment,.a State must
provide "notice rea..qonably caJculated,'under
all eircumstanres, to apprise interested par-
tie. of the pendency of the action and af-
ford them an opportunity to prescnt their
objections." Invoking this "elementar)" and
. fundamental requirement of due process,"
ibid, the Coutt held lhat published notire of
an action Lo settle the accounts of a com.
mon trust fund was not sufficient to inform
beneficiaries of the trust whose 'names and
addresses were known. The Court ex-
plain,"' that.notice by publication was not
reason "!y calculated to pro\'ide actual no-
tice Ii pending proceeding and was
thereL .<H.Jequate to inform those who
could hi :;i{ified by more effective m('.3ns
such tL.<.; 1Ial senice or mailed notice:
''Chan\, 'dne brings to the attention of
e....en a local resident an advertisement in
small type inserted in the back pag-es of a',
newspaper, and if he makes his home_I
outside the area of lhe newspaper's nor.l,
mal circulation the odds that the inform~' ,
lion will never reach him arc larRe in..
dc('l!. The chance of actual riotice is (ur~
ther reducer! when ll.o; h('re the no tire
required does not even name those whose
.!
.i
r
,
r
t
~
:j
,~
. '.!
f
: '
, ,
;(
'1'
: ~ f,
;'1
iM
';~
attention' it is ,uprosed to allract, and
docfI not inform acquaintances who mig-hl
call it to attention. In weighing its .ulri.
cicncy on the ba.~ig or equivalence with
actual notice we are unable to regnrd thi.
a., m9re than a feint." fri., at 315, 70
S.Ct., at 658.'
In subseq'lCnt cases, thi. Court ha., ad.
hered unwaiveringly to the principle an.
. nouneed in Mullane. In Walker v. City of
H"tchinso~, 352 U.S. 112, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1
L.Ed.2d 178 (1956), lor example, the Court
held that notice of condemnation proceed.
hogs published in a'local newspaper was an
inadequate means of informing a landown- .
er whose name was known to the city and
3. The decision in Mullane rejected one.of the
premises underlying this Court's previous deci-
sions concerning the requiremenu of notice In
Judicial proceedIngs: that due process rights
.. may vary depending on whether actions are in
rem or in personam. 339 U.S., at 312, 70 S.Cl,
at 656. See Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186.
206. 97 S.Cl 2569. 2580. 53 L.Ed.2d 68J (1977).
Traditionally, when a state court bas~ its jur.
isdiction upon its authority over the defend-
ant's perSOn, persona.! service was considered
essential for the court' to bind indJviduals who
did not submit to its jurisdiction. See, ~.g..
Hamilton v. Brown. 161 U.S. 256. 275, 16 S.Cl
585, 592, 40 L.Ed. 691 (! 896); Arndt v. Griggs,
134 U.S. 316. 320, 10 S.Ct. 557, 558, 33 LEd.
918 (1890): Penn oyer v. Neff. 95 U.S. 714, 726,
733-73.4, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1878) ("Due process of
Taw Would requiTe appearance or personal ser.
vice. btfore the defendant could be personally
boUnd by any Judgrtlent rendered."). In Hess
v. Pawloski. 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632,71 L.Ed.
1091'(927), the Court reco~jzed for the first
time that service by registered mail, in place of
personal service, may satisfy the requirements
of due process. Constructive notice was never
deemed sufficient to bind an individual in an
action in ~rsonam.
tn contrast, In in rem or qalasi in rem pro-
ceedings In which jurisdiction was based on the
court's power oyer proPerty within its territory,
see genera1Jy Shaffer' \f. Heitner, supra, 433
U.S.. at 196--205, 97 S.Ct., at 2575--2580, con.
"tructive notice to nonresidents was tradition.
:;lly understood to salJsty the requirements of
;ue process. tn order to setUe questions of
IUe to property within It I territory,' a state
-ourt wu generally rt'qulred to proct~ by an
n T't'm action Ilnce the court could not othrr.
:15~ bind nonrasldt'nts. At one Ume con!ltruc.
Iv" !Iervlc~ WI\S cC'tnsldt'rrd the only menn!! of
oUl'ytn. nOnfl"!'Ildt'nlll .Ine(' II WAil b('IIf'\'''d
r,at "(P)roctIJ from C16 tribunal. of one StAte
Was on Ibe official record.. Similarly, in
SchroC'<lcr v. City of New York, 371 U.S.
208, 83 S.Ct. 2;9, 9 L.Ed,2d 255 (1962), the
r.<>url concluded Ihat publication in a new...
paper and posted nolices were inadequate
to appri.e a property owner. of condemna.
lion proceedings when hi. name and address
wa..., readily ascertainable Irom holh deed
records and tax rolls. Most reoenUy, in
Greene v, Lind.ey, 456 U.S. 444, 102 S.Ct.
1874, 72 L.Ed.2d 249 (19~2), we held that
posting a summons on the ~I~r of a tenant's
apartment was an inadequata U1eans of pro-
viding notice of 'forcible enlry and detainer
acLions, See also Memphi.. Light, Gas &
Water Di,'. I'. Craft, 436 U,s, I, 13-15, 98
J
cannot run Into another State." Pennoyer ".
Neff. supra, at 727. See Ballard l'. Hunter. 204
U.S. 241, 255, 27 S.Ct. 261, 266, 51 LEd. 461
(J 907). As a result, the nonresident aCQuit~d
the dut)' "to take measures that in some way
he shall be, represented ......hen his property Is
caUed into requisition." Id., at 262, 27 S.Ct., at
269. If he "faiJ[td] to get notice by the ordi,
nary publications which have been usually re.-
quired in sucb cases, it {was] h.ls misfortune."
/bid, I
Rarel)' was a corresponding duty imposed on
interested parties who resided within the State
and whose idenUtie-s were reasonably 8,!:-
'cert.a.inable. Even in actions in rem, such indi-
viduals Were genera1/y provided personal ser.
vice. See, e.g., Arndt v. Gn'ggs, supra, 134'
U.S" at 326-327. 10 S.CI., at 560--561. Whe,.
the identity of Inter.ested residents couJd not be
ascertained after a reasonably diligent inquiry,
however, their interests in property couJd be
affected by a proceeding in rem as Jong as
constructive notice was pro\ided. See Hamil-
ton v. Brol'7J, supra, 16J U.S., at 275, 16 S.Ct"
at 592; Amen'can Land Co. v. Zeiss, 219 U.S.
47, 61~2, 6$-l;6. 31 5.0. 200, 206-207, 55
. 'L.Ed. 82 (1911).
Be-ginning \\;th Mullane, this Court has Fee-
ognized. contrary to the earlier line of cases,
"that an adverse judgment in rem directly af-
fects the property o\',")')er by divesting him of
his rights in the property before the court."
Shaffer v. Heilner, SUpra, 433 U.S., at 206, 97
S.Ct.. at 2580. In rejecting the traditional justi-
fication for distingUishing between reSidents'
and nonresidents and ,between in rem and in
pt'r$on'm "ctlons. the Court has not left all
Interested claimants to the vQRnrtes of inditect
nollee. Our cales have required (he State to
mnke tffort.l 10 prOvide actUAl notice to all
lntef'('~tf'd pnrtJe!l complullble 10 the effortl
thllt Wl'r,. 1'tt'\'lu\l~I)' f"f'fJlllrf'd only In In pt'non,
.macUon.. Sef'/nh'If,llt171"_271!',
.
. .
~
,I
.'
:)
, I
I
III
I'
/
'-~'0"'J" "J '. .........."....."',
ClI.. a, IOJ s.ci. 2706 (J!IU)
S.'CC 15!j.1~ J.)62-1563, 56 L.Ld.2d 3" (1978); S,'mp.<on, 55 U.S. 52, 67, 14 L.F..d. 322 OR-52).
'Eisen v.' G.1rlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156: Whcn the mort~a~ee i. identificr! in a mort_
174-175, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 2150--2151, 40 gage that is publicly recorder!, COnatroctive
L.Ed.2rl 732 (1974); Bank of M.rin I'. Eng_ notice by publication must be Supplemented
I.nd, 385 U,S. 99, 102, 87 S.Cl. 274, 276, 17 hy notice mailer! lo the mortgogee's last
L.Ed.2d 197 (1966); Co"eJ' v, Somers, 351 known available .ddreas, or by persona' ser-
U.S, 141, 14(;-.147, 76 S.Ct. 724, .727, 100 vice, But unJ""s the mortgagee i. not rea-
L.Ed. 1021 (1956); City of New York v. sonably identifiable, Mnstroctiv. notice
New Yo; <, NH. & H.R. Co., 344 U.S. 293, alone does not Batisfy the mandate of Mu/.
296-297, 73 S.Ct. 299, 301, 97 L.Ed. 333 lane.'
(1953) \ .
[l,2J This case is contrgJler! by the anal_ .
ysis io Mullane. To begin with, a mortga_
gee possesses a substantial property interest
that is Significantly affected by a laX'sale.
Under Indiana law, a mortgagee acquires a
lien on the owner's property which may be
.conveyed logether with the mortgagor's
personal obligation lo repay the debt se-
Cured by the mortgage. Ind. Code ~ 32-8-
11-7. A mortgagee's security interest gen-
erally has priority OVer subsequent claims
or liens attaching, lo the property, and a
purchase money mortgage lakOll precedence
over virtually all other claims or liens in-
~Iuding those which antedate the execution
of the mortgage. Ind. Code ~ 32-8-11--4.
rhe tax salc immediately and drastically
liminishes the value of this security inter_
'st by granting the lax.sale purchascr a
en with priority OVer that of all other
cedi tors. Ultimately, the tax sale may re-
dt "in the complete nullification of the
ortgagec's interest, since the Purchaser
<juires title fr~ of all liens and other
cumbrances at the conclWlion of the re-
mption period. ..
;ince a mortgagee clearly has a legally
tecled property interest, he is entitled to
ice reason.bly calculated lo apprise him
a pendiog tax sale. Cf. Viis wall v.
n thJ.s case. the mortgage on file With the
_'nly recorder identified the mortgagee only
"MENNONITE BOARD Of' MISSIONS .
POratlon, of Wayne County. in the State of
0." We assume that the mortgagee's ad-
~s could have be-en aSCertained by reason.
' dlllRent {"(forts. See MIII/"l)~ v. ern'r,,!
Ol'tor Dllnk .. 1ru.f( Co., 3JD U.S. JOfl, 317,
"C1. ~52, 658 r'~9, 114 t,Ed. B6.~ (19['0).
fly mtllJlII~ " It'ttrr to "Mt'lInonJle nnArd of
Ion!, Wayne County,' Ohio," quite likely
[:HiJ Neither notic.. hj .publication and
POsting, nor mailed notice to the Property
owner, are means lfsuch as one desirous of
actually informing the [mortgag.,e] might
reasonahly adopt to aCcomplish iV' Mul-
lane, ,'upra, 339 U.S., at 3]5., 70 S.Ct.. at
657. Because they are de.,igned primarily
lo attract prospective purch"'ers lo the tax
sale, publication and POsting are unlikely lo
reach those who, although they have an
interest in the property. do not make apeeial
efforts lo keep abreast of such notices.
Walker Y. Cily of Hutchinson, supra, 352
U.S., at lI6, 77 S.Ct., at 202; New York v.
New York, N.H. &. H.R. Co.. supro, 344
U.S., at 296, 73 S.Ct., at 301; . Mullane,
supra, 339 U.S., at 315, 70 S.Ct., at 657.
Notice to the property owner, who is not in
Privity with his crediwr and who hllS failed
lo lake steps rlec""Mry lo />rOllerve his OWn
property interest, also cannot be expected
lo lead to actuaJ notice to the mortgagee.
Cf. Nelson v. New York eil)', 352 U.S. 103,
]07-]09, 77 S.Ct. 195, ]97-]99, I L.F..d.2d
]71 (1956). The County's U!le of these I"ss
reliahle forms of notice is not rt;asonablc
where, a..'i here, "an inexpensive and e[fi~
cient mechanism such as mail senicc is
available." Greene ''''. Lindsey, supra, 456
U,S., at 455, 102 S.Ct., at 1881.
would have prOvided actual notice. given "the
Well. known skill of postal officIals and employ.
ees in ma.lting proper delivery of letters deff.'c.
livelyaddressed'." Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S.
3B5. 397~19B, J4 S.CL 779. 784, 58 t.Ed. 136J
(914), We do not .';Uf:Rt','l:t, however, (hAt .
govrrnlllf'lllnl hOrly l~ rf'qulrt'd (0 llIuJ,.rta!te
f')Ctrnordlllllry "(forl~ 10 l!1!i('~vt'r the ldf'ntlly
nlltf whrrrllhtlllls of It rnllt1~nRf'e WOO.4ft Jdl"nU_
ty b not In thl" public rt'Cordt
,
I'
I
i'
<-Hi
-
~
~
I ,::-
[
1(-
pJ=
~-
, ,=
:, .I~
'I,~I =---
~( ,---
.'~-~
./ ,:--
, -
t-
~;~, -
~"-
;tl;..
'11_
,:I;'i=--
'~~.'.'I.~
'I'
-
"-
!:I~-
;!,I',il_
fl-
" :'{ ~--==
,1,._
-~"-=-
ili~
1.l1~: : -
'J~
'il_
Jil, ....&:;-
lll,~-:
ht~_
~I!f:.~
) . Pennn..' '''''rvice or mailed notice is ""_
. quiretl even though sophistic.'led creditors
have mE'-Rn~ at their disposal to discover
whether property t.'Xes ha Ve not been paid
and whether tax sale Proc~dings are there-
fore likely to be initialed. In the (irst
place, a mortgage need not iovolve a com-
plex commercial transaction among know.
ledgea',le partie~, and it may well be the
le~t sophisLicaled creditor whose security
inu,rest i. thrcau,ned by a tax sale. More
impo"'..nlly, a party'. ability to lake .teps
to ",,[eguard its intereat. does not relieve
the Slate of iIB constitutional obligation. It
is true that particularly extensive ef(orta to
provide notice may. often be required when
the Slate is aware 6( a party'. inexperience
or incompetence. See, e.g., Memphis Ligh~
Gas & Water Div. v. Craf~ supra, 436 U.S.,
at 13-15, 98 S.Ct., at 1563-1564; Covey v.
Somers, supra. . But it does not follow that
the Stau, may forego eVen the relatively
mode.ql administrative burden of providing
notice by mail to parties who are particular_
ly resourcefuL' Cf. New York v. New
York, N.H. & H.R. Co., supra, 344 U.S., at
297, 73 S.Ct., at 301. Notice by mail or
j other mean.q as certain to ensure actuai
notice is a minimum constitutional precon-.
dition to a Proceeding which will adversely
affect the liberty or property interests of
JJ!!X party,' whether unlettered or well
versed in co"7rnercial Practice, if .iLcI Harne
'fmd address lire reasonably ascertainable.
!Furthermore, a mortgagee's knowledge of
d~linquency in the payment of taxes is not
equivalent to Qotice that a tax sale io pend- .
. ing. .The latter "was the information which
the [('-ounty) w~ constitutionally obliged to
give personally to the appellant_an ;,bliga-
tipn which the mailing of a single letu,r
would have discharged." &hroeder v. City
of New l"ork, supra, 371 U.S., at 214, &1
S.Ct., at 283.
5. Indeed, notice by maiJ to the mortgagee may
ultimately relieve the county of a more sub-
stantial administrative burden If the mortgagee
arranges for payment of the delinquent taxes
prior to the tax sale.
I. This apP<'al aJkJ pres<,n(s the question wheth.
~r. tK-fol'1" thr county auditor r'Xccul('!I .l1d dr'.
1I\'rrl . det'd 10 the I"".sale purChuf'r. !hl"
(7) We the"'(ore ""nclude that the man-
ner of notice provided to appellaot did not
meet the requirements o( the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment'
Armmi~g-I}', the jUdgment of the Iodiana
Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause
is remanded for (urther proceedings not
jnconsi~tent with this .ppinio.n.
It is so on/ered.
Justice O'CONNOR, with whom Justice
POWELL and Justrce: iEHNQUIST join,
dis..'it'nting.
Today, the GOur;! departs significantly
from il" prior decision~ and holds that be-
fore the State conducts any prOC.eeding that
will affect the legally protect.d property
interc.,Ls of any party, th. State must pm-
vid. notice to that party by m.ans certain
to ensure actual notice as long as the par~
tis identity and location are "reasonably
ascertainable." Ante, at 2712. Applying
this novel and unjustified principle to the
pres.nt case, the ("JUrt decides that the
mortgagee involved deserv.d more than the
notice by publication and posting- that wer.
provided. I dissent because the C-ourt's a~
proach is unwarranted beth as a general
rule and ~ the rule of this ca."".
I
In Mullane v. Cen/nll li.1nover Trust C".,
339 U.s. 306, 314, 70 Sel 652, 657, 94 L.&1.
86.1 1l950), the Court established that "ra]n
elementary ann funriafi]cntaJ requirement
of due' process in any proceeding y.'hich is to
be accorded finality is notice reasonably
calculat.ed under all circumstanres, to ap-
prise interested parties of the pendency of
the action and afford them an opportunity
mortgagee is constitutionally entitled to notice
of its right to rede-em the propf'rt}'. Cf. Gntr0
v, Griffin. 327 U,S. 220. 229, 66 S.O. 556.
560- 56/.90 LEd. 6.15 (1946). BecA'use we con.
cludf' that the failure to ~jve adequat,. nOlin' of
the lax sale proceeding. dl'prived appf'Il.1nt bf
due proces!; of law. we nepd nol r("ach thl9
qU('!'lUon.
/"
MENNONITE BI). OF MISsioNS v. ADAlIIS
Cite as 10J S.CL 271)8 (I!lS3)
.() pre."cnt their objcction~." We cmpha-
ized that notice is constitutionally ade-
uMe when "the practicalitie.l;\ and pcculiar-
ics o( the ca.<K! ... arc reasonahly met,"
I., at 314-315, 70 S.Ct.. at 657. See 01.0
I'a/ker v. City of /iuu,hinson, 352 U.s. 112,
15, 77 S.Ct. 2QO, 202, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956);.
'chrocder v., City of Nell' York, 371 U.S.
J8, 211-21~, 83 SCt. 279, 281-282, 9
. Ed.2d 255 (1962); Greene v. Lindsey, 456
.S. 444, 449--450, 102 S.Ct. 1874, 1877-
37b, 72 L.Ed.2d 249 (1982). The key focus
the Ilrea.<;;onahlencss" of the means chosen
; the Stat<>. Mullane, supr~, 339 U.S.. at
;5, 70 S.Ct., at 657. Whether a particular
ethod of notice i. reasonable depend. on
,e ouu:ome of the balance between the
nterest of the Stale" and "the individual
terest sought to be protected by the Four-
enth Amendment." Id., at 314, 70 S.Ct.,
657. Of course, "[i]t is' not our reo
onsibilily to pre<cribe the form of service
at the [State] should adopt."
eene, supra, 456 U.S., at 455, n. 9, 102
;t., at 1880, n. 9. It is the primary reo
Jnsibility of the State to strike this bal-
ce, and we will upset this process only
,en the State strikes the balance in an
alienal manner.
"ro7n Mullane on, the Court has ada.
.nUy refused to commit "itself to any
mula achieving a balance between these
eres18 in a particular proceeding or de- '
mining when constructive notice may be
lizcd' or what test it must mee\." 339
;. at 314, 70 S.C\.. at 657. Indeed. we
'e recognized "the impossioility of set-
': up s rigid formula as to the kind of
ice that must t){' given; notice will l'ary
h the circumst..'lnces and conditions."
Iker, supra. 3,,2 U.S., at 115, 77 S.C\.. at
(empha.,i, added). Our approach in'
~c cases ha.~ always reflected the general
,ciple that "[t]he very nature of due
.~C5..q negates any concept of inflexible
'cdurcs univc~nlJy applicahle to e\'ery
ginnhlc e;luntion:' Cafeteria & Rc.'lt.nll-
n Multant' "', Ct'ntrltl Hltno\'C'r Dnnk & Tru~t
'.. 339 U.S. 306, 314. 70 S.C,. 652. 657. M
~_d. R65 (HlSO), we held thl'l "(p}ersonal ser-
-e hlt~ not In PIll c!r(',~'r:~;!L'\.n(f''5 ht'r-n regarded
2713
rant Workers Union, Loc:.JI 473 ". McElroj',
367 U.S. 886, R95, 81 S.Ct. 174.1, 1748, 6
L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961). See also Mathews v.
Eldrirlife, 424 U.S. 319, 3.'14-.135, 96. &Ct.
893, 902--903, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). .
A
Although the Court purport.' to apply
these settled principles in this case, its deci-
sion today is squarely at odds with the
balancing approach that we 11'a\'e~evelopl'd.
The Court now holds that .'henever a party
has a legallJ' protected property interc.,t,
"[nJotice by mail'or other means as certain
to ensure actual notice is a minimum ('.ansU-
tutional precondition to a pro<'eeding which
will.adversely affect the liberty or property
interests. .. if [th~ party's] name and ad-
dress are reasonably ascertainable." Ante,
at 2712. Without knowing what state and
individual interests will be at stake in fu-
ture ca..l;CS, the Court espouses a general
principle ostensihl)' applicable whenever
any legally proter.ted property interest may
be adversely affected. This is a nat rejec-
tion of the view that no "formula" can be
devised that adequately evaluaw. the con-
stitutionality of a procedure created by a
State to provide notice in a certain clas.." of
<<'Se<. Despite the fact that Mullane iL,elf
acccpt.crl that ronslructive notice satisfied
the dictates of due process in certain cir-
cum;;tancps,1 the Court, citing- ,Mullane, now
holds that con5tructive notice can ne~'er
suffice whenever there is a legally protect-
ed propert)' interest at stake.
In seeking to justify this broad rule. the
Court holds that althou~h a party's-;nahility
to sa(f>Ruard ill:i interc5ts may result in im-
posing great.er notice burdl'ns on the StatR,
the (act that a party may he more able "to
safeguard it.<: intcresLo; docs not relicve the
State of its' constitutional obligation."
. Ante, at 2712. Apart from i~norin~ the
fnei thal it i5 the tot..1lily of circul1lstnnce~
thnt determine.'l the ~uf(jdcnc.v of noUer',
. os Indi!>Jwmflbrr to lhc proq'S!'l dllr to rl"sl.
dell(!>, and it hilS IlHlTr often been held unneces.
sary as lo nonresidents."
-
,
--
.
-
,-
(~
~=
~
~~:.
')"-
J,.._
1il~
!l=
i~I;_
~f~-
'~\'-
~,I =-----
1~!~
t~!o-- .
'1-
\r,!,-
~~
~1 ib:-
~~~
":~It;--
,i>r'.;~
:~ ~ .-
~!~',i~
rf!~-
I~~:-=--
I I'~' ....
,f~! 1lII-
l'li~ ::
fl:II;, (liS.
,;, I ~
J;:-
iJ~~
.'J~~
S.;,...-
2714
103 SUPREME COURT. REPORn;R
\
1
;1
"
the Court .lso oeglects to ronaider that the
constitutional obligation imposed upon the
State may it.self he defined by the party's
ability to protect its interest. AJJ recently
as last Term, the Court held that the focus
of the due Pl'OCl"as inquiry has always heen
the effeel of a ~otice procedure on "a par- .
ticu lar class ctr CBSCS," Greene; supra, 456
U.S., at 451, 102 S.C\., at 1878 (emphasis
added). In fashioning a broad rule for "lhe
least sophisticated c"'!litor;' anle, at 2712,
the Court ignores the well-settled principle
that "procedural due proceas rules are
shaped by tbe risk of error inherent in the
.truth finding proce... as applied to the gen-
erality of CBSes, not the rare exceptions,"
Mathews \'. Eldridge, supra, 424 U.S., at
344, 96 S.C\., at 907; see also Califano v.
Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 696, 99 S.Ct. 2545,
2555, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979). If the mem-
he,.. of a particular class generally possess
the ab;:ity to safeguard their interests, then
this fact must he taken into account when
we consider the "totality of circumstances;'
as required by Mullane. Indeed, the criteri-
on established by Mullane" 'is not the possi-
bility.,f conceivable injury but the just and
reasonable character of the requirements,
having reference to the subject with which
the statute deals:" 339 U.S., at 315, 70
S.C\., at 657 (quoting American Land Co. v.
7A'iss, 219 U.S. 47, 67, 31 S.C\. 200, 207, 55
L'Ed' 82' (1911)). -
The Court also suggests that its broad
rule has really heen the law ever since
Mullane. See anle, at 2710, n. 3. The
Court reasons that hefore Mullane, the
characterization of proceedings 8.3 in per-
sonam or in rem was relevant.to determin-
ing whether the notice given was constitu-
tionally sufficient.' and that once Mullane
held that the "power of the State to resort
to constructive service" no lODR'er depended
upon the "historic antithesis" of in rem and
2. Th~ Court I" ~lml'ly Incornet In u~("rtlll~
thAt h~for~ Mul1nnr. con'ltructlve notlre WIHI
~ Ul.rrly d~('ml"d ,.uffirlrn( tvpn as tn In n'm pro-
ceedinr,s wh('~ rf'~ldenIJ. ("If lht" State wrrt' In.
volv..d, /J.'1~,-'. -,,'. /'"; '.'-.' !
~.. TooIitCl, 2t<' !.:~; t,
.507-508, 52 L.Ed. 859 (l~8). S-.:ot: lIi,so Note.
,.
~\
~\ '.
in personam proceedings, 339 U.S., at 312-
313, 70 S.Ct.,. at 656, constructive notke
became insufficient ... to all proceedings.
The plain language of Mullane iselear
.that the Court expressly refused to reject
con.qtruclive notice 8.3 per ,qe insufficienL
See 339 U.S.. at 312--314, 70 S.CL, at 656-
657. Moreover, the Court errS: ir thinking
that the only justification for constructive
notice is the distinction between types of
proceedings. See ante, at 2nO, n. 3. The
historical justification for !onslructive no-
tice "'as that those with an interest in proJ>-
ert)' were under an ohligation to act reason.
ably in keeping themselves informed of pm-
ceedings that affected that property. See
e.g., North Lammie Land Co. v. Hoffman,
268 U.S. 276, 28.'l, 4,5 S.CL 491,494,69 L.Ed.
953 (1925); Ballard I'. Hunter, 204 U.S. 241,
262, 27 S.Cl. 261, 269, 51 L.Ed. 461 (1907).
As discussed in Part II of this dissent, infra,
Mullane expressly acknowledged, and did
not reject, the continued vitality of the
notion that properly owner.; had some bur-
den to protect their properly. See 339 U.S.,
at 316, 70 S.C\., at 658.
B
The Court also holds that .the condition
for receiving nolice under it...c; new approach
is that the name aod address of the party
mus.t be "rea.<;onably ascertainable." In ap"-
plying this requirement to the mortgagee in
this case, the Court holds that the State
must exercise "reasonahly dilig-ent efforts"
in determining the addres.."i of the mortgagee,
id., at 2711, n. 4, and suggests that the
Slatf' i~ required to make some effort "to
dkro\'er the identity and the whereabout....,
of a morlg-agee whose identity is nol in the
public record." Ibid. Again, the Court de-
parts from our prior cases. In all of the
C3$C!' relicrl on b). the Court in its analysis,
the Slale either actually knew the ideotity
'I
I
I"
1
Thr ConslilutlullAllty of Notler by Puhllcnlion
in Tn Snlr I'rncrrdln5il:!'. R~ YAll' 1..J. 1505,
1507 (1!l1S) rOThl5 rult. Il'lt'nnilt'n~ rnnJtr\le-
ll\'~ noller) 'wn!!' . rXlt"ndf"c1 to at! in n"m
l'ro("f'rdin~s. whether Invol\'lng property o...."ed
0;)' lI{lntesidenls or rt>sidents.").
---.-- ..--~..-..-
MENNONITE BD. OF MISSIONS v. ADAMS
CIlI' u 103 S.CL 270e (1983) ,
or incapacity of the party seeking notice. or It cannot be doubted that the State hi... a
that identity wa.. "very e3!lily ascertaina- vital interest in the collection of it.. tax
ble," Sch/Y)('u't!r, supra, 37.1 U.S., at 212- rcvenue.~ in whatever reasonable ma.nner
213, 83 S.Ct., at 282. See also Mullane, that it chooses: "In authQrizing the pr<>-
supra, 3..19 U.S., at 318, 70 S.Ct., at 659; . ceedin~ to ~nforce the payment of the
Covey v. Town of Summers, 351 U.S. 141, taxes upon lands sold to a purchaser at tax
146, 76 S.Ct., at 727 (1956); ~ Walker, s~pra, sale, the State is in exerci,e '01 its sovereign
352 U.S., ~t1l6, 77 S.Ct., at 202-203; Eisen power to raise revenue essential to carry on
". Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 175,94 the aHairs of state and tbe due administta-
S.Ct. 2140, 2151, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974).' lion of the laws . . .. 'The process of taxa-
Under the Court's decision today, it is not tion does not require U", same kind of n<>-
clear how far the State must go in provid- tice as is required in a suit at law, or eVen
ing for re...onable efforts to ascertain the in proceedin~ for taking private property
name and address of an affected party. under the power of eminent domain.'''
indeed, despite the fact that the recoroed Leigh v. Creen, 193 U.S. 79, 89, 24 S.Ct. 390,
mortgage failed to include the appellant's 392, 48 L.Ed. 623 (1904) (quoting Bell's Cap
address, see ante, at 2711, n. 4, the Court Railroad Company v. Pennsyhania. 134
ooncludes that it.. whereabout.. were. "rea- U.S. 232, 239, 10 S.CL 533,535, 33 L.Ed. 8?2
sonably identifiable." rd., at 2711. This (1890)). The state has ~ecided to accomm<>-
uncertainty becomes particularly ominous date it.. ,ital inlerest in this respect
in the light of the fact that the duty to through the sale of real property on which
ascertain identity and location, and to noti- payment.. of property laxes have been de-'
fy by mail or other similar means, exists Iinquent for a certain period of time.'
:-vhe~ever any legally protected interest is The State has an equally strong interest
ImplIcated. in avoiding the burden imposed by the re-
quirement ~hat it must exercise "reasona..
ble" efforts to a.'Certain the identity and
location of any party with a legally protect-
ed inlerest. In the instant case, that bur-
den is not limited to mailing notice. Rath-
er, the Stale must have someone check the
recordq and ascertain with respect to each
delinquent taxpayer whether there is a
mortgagee. perhaps whether the mortgage
ha., I"on paid off, and whether there is a
dependable address.
Against the,e vital inleresls of the State,
we must weigh the interest possessed by
the relevant class-in. this case, mortga_
.
,
II
...
,
Once the Court effectively reject.. Mul-
lane and its progeny by accepting a per se
rule against const'1Jctive notice, it applies
its rule and holds that the mortgagee in this
case must receive personal service or mailed
notice because it has a legally protected
interest at stake, and because the mortgage
was publicly recorded. See ante, at 2711.
If the Court had observed it.. prior decisions
and engaged in the balancing required by
Mullane, it would have reached,the opposite
result.
;.,.-
\
;~~
(,
ii}
/ <
1~ ,.
r.."
'"
.
,Uj
. f.':
/1
F
.~,
~ '"
~.
,. ,
~:
t:~
'l..~ .
3. In MuJlGne, the Court contrasted those par-
ties whose iden~i~y and whereabouts are known
or "at hand" with those "whose Interests or
whert'l!Ibouts could not wJth due diligence be
ascertaIned," 339 U.S" at 318. 317, 70 S.Ct.. at
658, 659, this lanRuaRe rnust be read In the
ltR.ht o( the fae_ts of MulllJnl'), tn which the
IdpnUty and.locn'lcm of c('!thip ~)l'_','fir::\rI!,<j
.....f'rf> BCltJ!,U", l-::,__""_~
Afli/JU.ilt' 1:"'jFc~_ ,..-d ,;,t _',_ "".". !:!
learch "under ordimuy st>>ndarc15 of dJJigence"
2715
was required in that case. rd" 339 U.S" at 317,
70 S.Ct.. a' 659.
/,1
1,1
4. Thf' Court Juggests that the noUce that It
requires "may ultimately reli['\lte the county o(
8 more suhs(llntlaladminlstrnllvt burdt'n if the
m0r1R8~('e IlrrAnS('5 for pa)'mf'lnt or the delin-
Q11rn( taxes prior to the tax sale." Ante. 8!
: -: i 1, II. S The Court nt',::lccts lhe (acl
fhat the State is a better judge of how it wanLs
to lettJe 1($ lax debts than 15 Utis Court.
271~
lli3 SUPREME COt'!!! REPORTER
, y,ee,l . Contrary to the Court', approach
loda:I, thi, inlerc..t may not be evaluated
,imp:y by reference to the fact that we
have !f'C<1ucntly found com~lructive nolice
to l~ inadequate sinre Mullane. Rather,
such inlere,t "must be judged in the light
of it:, practical application to the affaira of
men as they arf~ ordinarily conducted,"
North Laramie Land Co., supra, 268 U.S., at
283,45 S.Ct., at49~.
Chief Justice Marahall wrole long ago
that "it is part of common prudence for all
those whp have any interest in [property],
to guard that inlerest by peraons who are in
a siluation to protect it" The Mary, 13
U.S. (9 Crane h) 126, 144,3 L.Ed. 67B (lBI5).
We have never rejected this principle, and,
indeed, we held in Mullane that "[a] St:ate
may indulge" the aasumption that a proper-
ty owner "usually arranges means to learn
of any dire<:t att:ack upon his possessory or
propriel>ary rights." 339 U.S., at 316, 70
,S.Ct, at 658. When we have found con-
structive notice to be inadequate, it has
always been where an owner of property is,
for all purposes, unable to protect his inter-
est because there is no practical way for
him to learn of st:ate action that threatens
to affect his property interest. In each
case, the adverse action WB.! one that was
completely unexpected by the owner, and
the owner would become aware of the ac-
'tion only by the fortuitous occasion of read-
ing "an advertisement iQ small type insert-
ed in the back pages of a newspaper ....
[that may)' not even name those whose at-
tention it is supposed to attract, and does
not inform acquaint:ances who mie-ht call it
. to attention." Mullane, supra, 339 U.S., at
315, 70 S.Ct., at 65B. In each case, the
individuals had no reason to expect that
their property interests were being affect-
ed.
5.. This is not to say that the rule espoused must
cover all ccnC'€"lvable mortgagees in all conceiv-
able ('.ircumstances. The nexiblllty or due
process Is sufficient to accommodate those
atypical members of the class of mortgagee!.
. L The Court holr;fs that u. mortf:ARe nC'ed not
involve a comf'Ir'l( ("omrnf'rdR.1 tra.m:actlon
among know!....>:'(,,!.'. '\"", i.
,
,~:
(~~"
<"
---.~'~
This jg not the CfL~C a.c; far as lax !\alcs and
mort,:;agec~ arc con("crned. Unlike condem-
nation or nn IIncxpcclc<i accounting, the
nssc~gmcnt or t.a,xes occurs with regularity
and predictahility, and the st.ale action in
this casc cannot reasonahly be characterized
as unexpected in any sense. Unlike the par-
ties in our other cases, the Mennonite Board
had a regular evenl, the assessment of t:ax-
'es, upon which to focus, in its'~ort to
protect it., interest. Further, approximate-
ly 95% of the mortgage debt nuUit:anding in
the United St:ales is held by private institu-
tionallendera and federally-suPl>orled agen-
cies. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Statistical
Abstract of the United St:ales: 1982-1\3,51!
(I03d ed.).' It is highl)' unlikely, if likely at
all, that a significant number of mortga.
gees are unaware of the consequences that
ensue when their mortgagors rail to pay
t:axes aasesscd on the rllOrtgaged property.
Indeed, in' this case, the Board itself re-
quired that Moore pay all property t:axes.
There is no doubt that the Board could'
have safeguarded its interest with a mini-
mum amount or effort. The county auc-
tions of property commence by st:atute on
the second Monday of each year. Ind.Code
~ &-1.1-24-2(5). The county auditor is re-
quired to post notice in the county cour~.
house at least three weeks before the date
of sale. Ind.Code ~ &-1.I--24-3(a). The
auditor is also required to publish notice in
two different newspapers once each week
for three weeks before the gall'. lnd.Code
~ &-1.1-24--3(a); Ind.Code ~ &-1.1-22-4(b).
The Board eould have supplemented the
protection offered by the St:ale with the
additional measures sugg-estcd hy the court
below: The Board could have required that
Moore provide it with copies of paid tax
assessments, or could have required that
2712. This Is certainJ)' Uur; however, that
does not change the facl that even if the Board
is not a professional money lender. it voluntari.
Iy enlt>red into a fairly !ophisticaled transac-
Uon with Moor(". As lh(" court below obsf'r\-'ed;
"Thr SIBIl! cannol rt'a~on;'lbly be iCxpecled to
8~sume the ri~k of its citizr'lls' business ven-
tures." Pel for Cen.. 21, n. 9.
'I
(
I
. -
1U3 :lUrKr;nU!; GlII!I(T JU;.~{}RTt;R
-,::IJ.1)
g".,..' 'Contrary to the Court'. a"pronch
today; this intel'Cllt may not be evaluated
.imply by ",ference to the fact that we
have frequently found con:ilructive notice
to be inadequate .ince Mullane. Rather,
such intere.t "must be judged in the light
of its practical application to the affai... of
men as they arf~ ordinarily conducted,"
North Laramie Land Co., supra, 268 U.S., at
283,45 S.Ct., st 49\. ~
Chief Justice Ma",hall wrote long ago
that "it is part of common prudence for all
those who have any interest in [property],
to guard that interest by pernons who are in
a situation to protect it" The Mary, 13
U.S. (9 Cranch) 126, 144, 3 L.Ed. 678 (1815).
We have never rejected this principle, and,
indeed, we held in Mullane that "[a] State
may indulge" the assumption that a proper-
ty owner "usually arranges mean! to learn
of any direct attack upon his possessory or
proprietary rights." 339 U.s., at 316, 70
IS,Ct., at 658. When we have found con-
structive notice to be inadequate, it h..q
always been where an owner of property is,
for all purposes, unable to protect his inter-
est because there is no practical way for
him to learn of state action that threatens
to affej;t his property interest: In each
case, the advenle action was one that was
completely unexpected by the owner, and
the owner would become aware of the ac-
tion only by the fortuitous occasion of read-
ing "an advertisement iQ small type insert-
ed in the back pages of a newspaper ... .
[that may)' not even name those whose at-
tention it is supposed to attract, and does
not inform acquaintances who mi(:ht call it
, to attention." Mullane, supra, 339 U.S., at
315, 70 S.Ct., at 658. In each case, the
individuals had no reason to' expect that
their property interests were being affect-
ed.
5. This Is not to say lllat the rule espoused must
cover aU conceivable mortgagees in all conceiv-
able clrcumslances. The flexibility or due
process is sufficient to accommodate those
atypical members or the. class or mortgagees.
... The Court holds that ". mortgftJ:e n<<'Cd not
lnvolve a complex commercial transaction
amonp, lmow'ffiv.p~~l!" ~:"lr~Je~ ." Antp, III
" ~"
j-.,,"
~~.'
~'"
~,.~~.
This i. not the ca.'e ..q rar as tax .ales and
mortl:llgee' arc conrrrnl'<l. Unlike condem-
nation or nn unexpected accounting, the
a."~c~~mcnt of taxes occurs with regularity
anll predictahility, and the st.lte action in
this case cannot reasonably be characterized
as unexpeeted in any sen... Unlike the par-
tics in our other ca.'ie~, the Mennonite Board
had a regular event, the assessment of tax-
'eg, upon which to focus, in its- effort to
protect its interest. Further, appr'eximat.e-
Iy 95% of the mortgage deht outotanding in
the United States is held by private institu-
tionallende... and federally-suPl>orted agen-
cies. U.S. Dert. of Commerce, Statistical
Abstract of the United States: 1982--83,511
(103d ed.)' It is high!)' unlikely, if likely at
all, that a significant number of mortga-
gees are unaware of the consequences that
ensue when their mort!:ago'" fail to pay
taxes assessed on the mortgaged property.
I ndeed, in' this cage, the Board itself re-
quired that Moore pay all property taxes.
There is no doubt that the Board could'
have safeguarded its interest with a mini-
mum amount of effort.' The county auc-
tions of property commence by statute on
the second Monday of each year. Ind.Corle
~ 6-1.1-24-2(5). The county auditor is re-
quired to post notice in the county court-
house at least three weeks before the date
of sale. Ind.Oxle ~ &-1.1-24-3(a). The
auditor is also required to publish notice in
two different newspapers once each week
for three weeks before the sale. Ind.Corle
~ 6-1.1-24-3(a): Ind.Corle ~ &-1.1-22-4{b).
The Board could have supplemented the
protection oHered by the State with the
addition a! measures sug/!,ested by the court
below: The Board could have required that
Moore prodde it with copies of paid tax
assessments, or could have required that
2712. This is certainJ).' true; however, that
does not change the (act that even if the Board
is not a professional money lender, it voluntari-
ly entered into II fairly sophislicated lransac.
Uon with Moorf'. As the court bE-low observed;
"Tht" StAte cannot rea~onnbly bE." ~xpect~ to
D~s'une the ri~k of its citizens' business ven-
tures." Pel for Cert. 27, n. 9.
I'
. .
NAT. ASS'N OF GREETING CAlin I'Un. v. U.s. I'OST. SER.
CUf.!lI03~Cb2717 (19~1
2717
Moore dcpo~it the lax monics in an c~crow
account, or could have itself checked the
public record. to determine whether the tax
assessment had been paid. Pet. for Cert.
27.
When a party is unreasonable in railing
to protect i,ts interest despite its ability to
co so, dut process d"""not require that the
State save the party from its own lack of
C2re. The balance required by Mullane
c:early weigbs in favor of finding that the
Indiana ,tatutes satisfied the requirements
of due process. Accordingly, I di,sent.
w
o ~ kOIlUIIBUSlSll1II
,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GREET.
ING CARD PUBLISHERS, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
et al.
.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF
AMERICA. INC. Petilioner,
v.
UNITED STATE!? POSTAL SERVICE,
.t al.
.
Nos. 81-1304, 81-1381.
Argued Dec. I, 1982.
Decidc'{\ June '22, 1983.
Petitioners and intervenors sought re-
view of order of the Board of Governors of
the United State. Po.tal Service which al-
lowed, under protest, certain changes in
po,tal rates and fees under rate-making
provision of Postal Reorgani1.ation AcL
The Court of Appeal" Second Cireuit, re-
mnnded, 663 F.2d 1186, On. certiorari, the
Supreme Court, Justice Blackmun, held
that: (1). the Rate Commission reasonably
construed the f.,d. "" ('~t.:,h1\~.;hir.g" 1\ two-tier
Tatt.'-gl'tL>l~: :<:c".i.:;-,; l.;:"h~.''::' '.'0;.,;:1, ;::.;; OOst..'i
that in judgment of the Commission are
consequence of providing particular class of
service mu,t be horne by that class, and. any
co,t for which'sou"," can be identified must
be attributed, but the commissioners, in
first instance, are to decide which methods
provide reasonable a..~uran~ that costs are
result of providing one class of service,.and
(2) on record, Commi..i"'" has conscientious- .
Iy attempled to find causal connections be-
tween classes of service 'Y'd all postal co,ts
-both operating costs and "overhead" or
lIcapacity" costs-where data is sufficient.
and Commission is to assign remaining oost..o;
reasonably on basis of other eight factors
set forth in the Act.
Judgment remanding cases affirmed.
"
I. Federal Courts -457
Because of inconsistencies in holding!>
of Second and District of Columbia Circuits,
United States Supreme Court granted cer-
tiorari.
2. Federal Courts _460
Subsequent decision to modify postal
rates at issue did not moot controversy in
view of fact that postal rates frequently are
in efrect too brieny for Iitigatioo concern-
ing them to be completed before they are
superseded and, therefore, there WBS more
than "reasonable expectation" that petition-
ers, who had taken part in most or all of
. challenges to prior rate schcdules, would be
affected uj' future proceedinbos. 39 U.S.
C.A. 99 101 et seq., 3622(b), (bX3).
3. Post Office 01= 15
Although Postal Reorganization Act di-
vides rate-making responsibility between
two agencies, legislative history demon-
strates that rate-making authority was I
vested primarily in Postal Rate Commission, r
and structure of the Act ,upports this view. I' I:
39 U.S.C.A. 99 101 et seq., 3622(u), 3624,
3625(dX2). .
4. StAtutes _219(6)
Postal Sen;ee has final responsihility
for guaranlceing that total revenues equal
~O~O
tA ~\~ sf'. 2.5~ .."\
---------
-.------
N/OI f
JEANEii E
GOl-DEN
0'
01 J
;\
\ inti
\\ ",t>:>
\ .t
,~~ N.
'q Ji'!-n
\ Ijj4'~.
Q.J'e
r:t
\
.
209 . 40
/.1'1'
l~
790
~
o
IN,jC
<t
IC)
....
'"
o
o
l'1
~
'"
'"
::<
o
<!)
l-
:z
o
::<
~
~
"-
0 -
0
0 0
:z
<1 ,<)
-' <t
0
"- a>
---
0 Z
---
:z
sQ f\ .
",'23,566 .
ARE A
nd\
~\
209.38
\
" ..1
'50 yo.
77026
5 ANNA IE:::W::~S~I
N/OI f SiEfAN
A NO
\~
o.fS
~D-1' e.
SURVEY OF PROPERTY
A T SOUTHOL 0
TOWN OF S OUTHOL 0
SUFFOLK COUNTY . N.Y.
1000
075 03
SCALE /" '" 40'
NOV. 3, /986
repared in accordance with the minimum
ndards for title surveys as establi.:h-Jd b.
e L.I. A. L. S. and approved and adopte~
such use by The New York Slale Land
Association.
S. L IC NO. 49668
p at'N"IC SURVEYORS
( /6) 765 " 5020
PO BOX 909
MAl N ROA 0
SOUTHOLD ,NY 1/971
a
ENGINEERS, PC.
86 -
6?O
o
CD
--l
~
en
o
C
-\
'X
'X
~
~
CD
o
~
r
~
14
FTWC 100
Revl,. /77
I ~\jI~"Jjl"J~.\jIjl.\jIj
! ! ,
j i
j i
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
First American Title Insurance Company
of New York
Title No. WMA-607-S-0039
eertifiec to Community Development Director
that an examination of title to the premises described in Schedule A has been made in
accordance with its usual procedure and agrees to issue its standard form of title
insurance policy in favor of the proposed insured, covering premises described in
Schedule A, in the amounts hereinafter set forth, insuring the fee and/or mortgage
and the marketability thereof, after the closing of the transaction in conformance with
procedures approved by the Company excepting (a) all loss or damage by reason of
the estates, interests, defects, objections, liens, encumbrances and other matters set
forth herein that are not disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company prior to such
closing or issuance of the policy (b) any question or objection coming to the attention
of the Company before the date of closing, or if there be no closing, before the issuance
of said policy.
'Chic eertilicate shall be null and void (1) if the fees therefor are not paid (2) if
the prospective insured, his attorney or agent makes any untrue statement with respect
to any material fact or suppresses or fails to disclose any material fact or if any untrue
answers are given to material inquiries by or on behalf of the Company (3) upon
delivery of the policy. Any claim arising by reason of the issuance hereof shall be
restricted to the terms and conditions of the standard form of insurance policy. If title,
interest or lien to be insured was acquired by the prospective insured prior to delivery
hereof, the Company assumes no liability except under its policy when issued.
Fred Ackley
Executive Vice President
PRESIDENT
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF NEW YORK
COUNTERSIGNED
Water Mill Abstract Corp.
dO~~( a.,~
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE T
BY~'~~
(See Over Page for General Ezceptitms from Coverage)
, "j
IF THE INSURED CONTEMPLATES MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY COSTING MORE THAN
TWENTY PER CENTUM OF THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER. WE SUGaEST THAT
THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE BE INCREASED TO COVER THE COST THEREOF; OTHERWISE, IN CERTAIN
CASES THE INSURED WILL BECOME A CO_INSURER.
The following estates, interests, defects, objections to title, liens and encumbrances
and other matters are excepted from the coverage of our standard form of policy:
1. Defects and encumbrances arising or becoming a lien after the date of this policy.
2. Consequences of the exercise and enforcement or attempted enforcement of any
governmental war or police powers over the premises.
3. Any laws, regulations or ordinances (including, but not limited to zoning, building,
and environmental protection) as to the use, occupancy, subdivision or improve-
ment of the premises, adopted or imposed by any governmental body, or the effect
of any noncompliance with, or any violation thereof.
4. Judgments against the insured or estates, interests, defects, objections, liens or
encumbrances created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by or with the privity of
the insured.
5. Title to any property beyond the lines of the premises, or title to areas within or
rights or easements in any abutting streets, roads, avenues, lanes, ways or water-
ways, or the right to maintain therein vaults, tunnels, ramps or any other structure
or improvement, unless this certificate specifically provides that such titles, rights,
or easements are insured. Notwithstanding any provisions in this paragraph to the
contrary, this certificate, unless otherwise excepted, insures the ordinary rights of
access and egress belonging to abutting owners.
6. Title to any personal property, whether the same be attached to or used in connec-
tion with said premises or otherwise.
Our policy will except from coverage any state of facts which an accurate survey might
show, unless survey coverage is ordered. When such coverage is ordered, this certificate
will set forth the specific survey exceptions which we will include in our policy. When-
ever the word "trim" is used in any survey exceptions from coverage, it shall be deemed
to include, roof cornice, show window cornice, lintels, sills, window trim, entrance trim,
bay window cornices, mouldings, belt courses, water tables, keystones, pilasters, por-
tico, balcony all of which project beyond the street line.
In certain areas, our policy will except from coverage any state of facts which a per-
sonal inspection might disclose unless survey coverage is ordered. In these cases a
specific exception will appear in this certificate.
Our examination of the title includes a search for any unexpired financing statements
which affect fixtures and which have been properly filed and indexed pursuant to the
Uniform Commercial Code in the office of the recording officer of the county in which
the real property lies.
No search has been made for other financing statements because we do not insure title
to personal property. We will on request, in connection with the issuance of a title
insurance policy, prepare such search for an additional charge. Our liability in connec-
tion with such search is limited to $1,000.00.
'.
fTWC-2
Rev. 5/81
.
First American Title lrisunince Company
of New York
Proposed Insured:
Title No. WMA-607-S-0039
Purchaser
Effective Date: 10/1/1988
Redated:
Mortgagee
Amount of Insurance
Fee
Mortgage
$ 5,000.00
$
$
THIS COMPANY CERTIFIES that a good and marketable title to the premises described in Schedule A, subject to the liens,
encumbrances and other matters, if any, set forth in this certificate may be conveyed and/ or mortgaged by:
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
the source of title being deed from the COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, dated 8/22/1986
recorded 9/25/1986 in Liber 10132 Page 352.
Premises described in Schedule "A" are known as:
Address:
County: Suffolk City:
District: 1000 Town: Southold
Section: 075
Block: 03
Lot: 014
Pagel
"
FTWC-21
First American Title lnsura'nce Company
of New YOrk
SCHEDULE A
DESCRIPTION
ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land with any buildings and
improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being in the Town of Southold
County of Suffolk and State of New York, and acquired by Tax Deed on February
16, 1982, from Jean H. Tuthill, the County Treasurer of Suffolk County, New
York, and recorded on February 16, 1982, in Liber 9143, Page 44 and 45, and
otherwise known as and by Town of Southold, School Dist. 5, N-M Hammond E-S
Harbor La, S-G J Wells W-W J Smith.
TOGETHER with all right, title and interest, if any, of the party of the
first part of, in an to any streets and roads abutting the above-described
premises to the center lines thereof. Said property is more-particulatly
bounded-and described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the westerly line of South Harbor Road, 1034.55
feet southerly along said westerly line from the Main Road, said point of
beginning being the southeasterly corner of land of Hammond; from said point
of beginning;
running along said westerly line of South Harbor Road, South 90 35' 00"
East, 108.71 feet to a monument and land now or formerly of Elak;
thence along said land now or formerly of Elak, South 770 26' 50" West,
209.47 feet to a monument and land of Surozenski;
thence along said land of Surozenski, North 90 43' 00" West 116.48 feet
to said land of Hammond;
thence along said land of Hammond North 790 35' 20" East, 209.40 feet to
the point or place of BEGINNING.
Page 2
FTWC-4
First American Title Insurance Company
of New York
Title No. WMA-607-S-0039
SCHEDULE B
Hereinafter set forth are additional matters whkh will appear in our policy as exceptions from coverage unless disposed of to
our satisfaction prior to the closing or delivery of the policy.
DISPOSITION
I. Rights of tenants or persons in possession, if any.
2. Taxes, tax liens, tax sales, water rates, sewer rents and assessments set forth herein.
3. Any state of facts which an accurate survey would show.
4. NOTE: Survey must be received and apprQVed prior to closing.
5. Require proof that the part (ty ot' ies) who (is or are) to
execute the closing instrument (s) (is or are) the same person(s)
as the certified fee owner (s) herein.
Title Certified in:
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
A duplicate copy of the exceptions is furnished to you with the thought you may wish to transmit same to the attorney for the
owner of the property, and thereby facilitate the clearing of the objections prior to closing.
Page 3
F'TWC.4A
First American Title Insurance Company
of New Thrk
Title No.
SCHEDULE B (Colltilllled)
Company Will:
Insure covenants and restrictions (if any) have not been violated and
no furture violation will result in forfeiture or reversion of title.
Insure that they will not interfere with the quite use and enjoyment
of the premises.
Insure easements affect streets only.
Insure street fronting property is maintained by the municpality.
Insure ingress and egress from premises to nearest public highway.
FTWC-5
cRt-v 9/83) .
First American Title Insurance Company
of New Thrk
Title No.
MORTGAGES
Mortgagor:
Amount: $
NONE OF RECORD
Dated:
Mortgagee:
Recorded:
Uber:
Record:
Page:
Reel:
This title report does not show all the terms and provisions of the mortgage(s) set forth herein. Interested parties should
contact the holder{s} thereof to ascertain the terms, convenants and conditions contained therein, and to determine if there
aTe any unrecorded amendments or modifications thereto.
Page 4
..'
. .
"'ATCH
z
MATCH
16
17.6A(c)
/
FOR PARCEL NO. SEE SEC, NO 01
Of
U~"yo.
"yo.
\,.
..
y
'Z.
\~\
A~
A.
I I
273Alc)
"
\. A~~\ \)
'l-'l-. ~'l.~S'\
Of ,-,GVo.
'l.O..~~",'l.
\<;J.~f)
/DOU
07)"
D3
~ D/~
"
,
\
\
. .
.
Title No.
~,jrln::
W~1A6()7S()039
The unpaid taxes, water rates. 2ssessments and other matters relating to taxes which are liens at the date
of this certificate are set forth below.
Our policy does not insure against such
items which have not become a lien up to
the date of the policy or installments due
after the date of the policy. Neither our
tax search nor our policy covers any part
of streets on which the premises to be in-
sured abut.
If the tax lots above mentioned cover
more or less than the premises under ex-
amination, this fact will be noted herein.
In such cases, the interested parties
should take the necessary steps to make
the tax map conform to the description to
be insured. A'5s' d to: TOI~N OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTH HARBOR LANE
DIST. :
SECT. :
BLOCK:
LOT(s)
1.000
075.00
03.00
014.000
Disposition:
TOl-.Jrl of Southold
SOl.1thold
Schoo.) [list.: 5
N ;< GOLDEN
E X S HAf~BOR
S X J l,jELLS
J.l X J 8M ITH
ACREAGE .50
1987/88 TOWN AND SCHOOL TAXES: EXEMPT.
WITHOUT EXEMPTION
TAX WOULD BE: $284.37
PRIOR TOWN AND SCHOOL TAXES PAID.
PREMISES ARE IN A MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT.
PREMISES NOT IN AN INCORPORATED VILLAGE.
NOTHING FURTHER FOUND
11/3/88
SUBJECT TO CONTINUATION
LA
LAND $
TOTAL$
EXEMPT
$800
800
BOC
TYPE
MISC
Recent payments of any open items returned on this tax search may not yet be reflected on the public records.
Therefore please request the seller or borrower fO have the receipted bif!s available at the closing.
. .
'. FTWC-'7 .
,
.
First American Title Insurance Company
of New York
CLOSING INFORMATION
Closed By
Date Closed
Title No.
Closed at the Office of
Parties Present:
Interest in Transaction:
Address:
Premises:
CREDIT TO BUYER
AS OF
SEITLEMENT
CREDIT TO SELLER
AS OF
Paid on Signing Contract: Purchase Price
Int. from to @ %
I st Mortgage held by
Int. from @ %
m. d. Water Rates
--~'--'---- -
Address Taxes
-.
Rent from to
2nd Mortgage held by Insurance
lot. from @ %
m. d.
Address
-----
P.M. Bond & Mtge. to
-
Rent from to
Adjustment for Fuel
-
Total Credit to Seller
----._--.- Total Credit to Buyer
Taxes Balance Paid
Assessments
Water Rates Additional Charges to Purchaser
Total Credit to Buyer Title Fee
-
Additional Charges to Seller: Dca wing Papers
Drawing Papers Recording Fees
Recording Fees Mortgage Tax
ConveyancinJ~~ecording Tax__ Conveyancing or Recording Tax
- _---1 II
REPORT OF CLOSING (Cont'd)
2. Kind of instrument
By
To or With
Dated Recorded
L._p.
Consideration or amount $
3. Kind of instrument
By Stamps affixed $
To or With
Dated Recorded
L.-p.
Consideration or amount $
4. Kind of instrument
By Stamps affixed $
To or With
Dated Record
L._p.
Consideration or amount $
. "
"
'\",
~. :
, '.F;TWC-ll
First American Title Insurance Company
of New York
. "
Title No.
REPORT OF CLOSING
By whom closed
Date Closed
Transaction closed at office of
The persons present were:
Name
Address
Interest
The identity of the persons executing the papers delivered on closing was established by the following evidence:
(Fee) - To
Title policy is to be sent
Address
Check Box if
Mtge. Policy
delivered on closing
D
(Mtge.) - To
Address
The following instruments were executed and delivered: CLOSER: (a) Always PRINT Name of Insured fully and
I. Kind of instrument completely and write ali other names iegibly. (b) Where
there are two persons, indicate whether husband or wife.
By (c) If first names are unusual indicate whether male or
female. Abstract fully terms of payment of any mort-
gage delivered on closing. Show addresses of all grantees
and individual mortgagees.
Recitals in instrument, and other pertinent information
or instructions must be noted here.
To or With
Dated Recorded
L. _po
Consideration or amount $
(See Over)