HUNTLEY, Justice.
The central issue of this appeal is whether procedures undertaken by Blaine County were adequate to notify Hall, a property owner, prior to tax deficiency sale of his property.
The stipulated facts are as follows. In March, 1979, Charles Hall purchased a lot in Blaine County from LAM Enterprises. Hall took title by warranty deed, prepared by Sun Valley Title Company. The deed failed to list Hall’s address, despite the requirement of I.C. § 55-601 that a grantee’s name and address be on a deed. At the same time Hall executed a deed of trust in favor of Carl Curtis to secure payment of $24,000. At the request of Sun Valley Title Company the warranty deed and deed of trust were recorded in the Blaine County Recorder’s office. The deed of trust was acknowledged by Hall in Pit-kin County, Colorado, where he lived at the time.
Because neither recorded document contained Hall’s address, the Blaine County Assessor’s office, pursuant to its own internal policy, posted Hall’s address on the tax rolls as Box_, Ketchum, Idaho, 83340. The Blaine County Treasurer sent annual real estate tax notices for the years 1979 through 1982 to Hall at the Box_address. Reminder notices were also sent to that address. During this time, Hall continued to live in Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. - He did not receive any of the Blaine County annual tax statements, nor did he receive any of the reminder notices.
The property taxes went unpaid from 1979 through 1982. Consequently the Treasurer made a tax delinquency entry in 1980. In September, 1982, the Blaine County Treasurer sent a notice of pending issuance of tax deed for the subject property to Hall at the Box _ address by certified mail with return receipt requested. The notice was returned marked as undelivered. The Blaine County Treasurer then searched the county records and the local phone book and contacted the U.S. Post Office in Ketchum in an effort to obtain Hall’s address, but no address was found. Therefore the Treasurer published a copy of the notice of pending issuance of tax deed in the local Ketchum paper for four consecutive weeks in September and October of 1982; the last notice was published two months and twenty-two days before issuance of the tax deed. In January, 1983, the Treasurer executed a tax deed conveying property to Blaine County. [295]*295In May, 1983, Blaine County sold the property by quitclaim deed to the plaintiffs, Giacobbi and Stanek. Giacobbi and Stanek then filed suit to quiet title to the property. Stanek obtained Hall’s address from the Sun Valley Title Company in order to serve Hall with a complaint and summons in the quiet title action. At all times since the sale of the property in 1979 Sun Valley Title Company knew Hall’s address. Though the Blaine County Recorder’s office sometimes contacts title companies in order to locate a taxpayer’s address, it did not do so in this case.
Hall counterclaimed claiming Stanek and Giacobbi had no valid interest in the property, and cross-claimed against Blaine County on the ground that the County had failed to provide him proper notice of the tax deficiency thereby denying him due process.
The trial court entered judgment quieting title in Stanek and Giacobbi. It ruled that Hall did not use reasonable diligence by virtue of his having allowed the tax deficiencies to occur, in that he did not comply with I.C. § 55-601,1 and that equity could not allow voiding of the tax deed if the County had acted properly. The court further ruled the Blaine County Treasurer had acted properly in that she was required only to search the county records for an address for Hall. The court then concluded that I.C. § 63-1126B(1)(a)2 only requires the treasurer to send notice to an owner “at their last known address,” and that there was never a “last known address” for Hall because there had never been an address on the warranty deed. Only had there been an original address, the court stated, would I.C. §§ 63-1126B(l)(a) and (b), requiring a “reasonable and diligent search and inquiry in attempting to locate and serve the record owner” be applicable. Finally the court determined that the publication was adequate notice, and that Hall’s due process rights had not been violated.
Hall appeals contending the trial court erred as follows:
(1) In ruling that Hall’s failure to have his address on the deed constituted “unclean hands,” depriving him of the right to equitable relief, and that Hall’s failure to comply with I.C. § 55-601 relieved the County of the obligation under I.C. § 63-1126B to perform a reasonable and diligent search and inquiry for Hall’s address prior to issuing a tax deed;
(2) In failing to rule that:
the County Treasurer was required to search beyond county records in order to have performed a reasonable and diligent search and inquiry for Hall’s address pursuant to the requirements of I.C. § 63-1126(B)(1)(b).
We reverse for the following reasons.
Hall’s failure to comply with I.C. § 55-601 did not deprive him of the right to [296]*296equitable relief. In Gilbert v. Nampa School District No. 131, 104 Idaho 137, 657 P.2d 1 (1983) this Court described the doctrine of unclean hands as “conduct [that] has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent and deceitful as to the controversy in issue.” 104 Idaho at 145, 657 P.2d at 9. The record before us is devoid of facts which support a conclusion that Hall’s actions were in any way inequitable, unfair, and dishonest or fraudulent and deceitful to the County. There is no evidence that Hall either prepared the deed or had any intent that his address not be placed thereon. There is no evidence that he even noticed that his address was omitted. The unclean hands doctrine does not apply to merely negligent misconduct on the part of a taxpayer. Eresch v. Braecklein, 133 F.2d 12, 14 (10th Cir.1943).
Furthermore, Hall’s failure to include an address on the warranty deed did not relieve the County of its duty to comply with I.C. § 63-1126B in performing a reasonable and diligent search and inquiry to find Hall’s address and notify him prior to issuance of a tax deed. I.C. § 63-1126(B)(1)(b) states that “in the event that such notice is served [by registered or certified mail] and returned undelivered and after reasonable and diligent search and inquiry____” (Emphasis added.) Clearly the statute contemplates that certified or registered mail notice may be undeliverable, and may be so for any number of reasons: no address on the deed, an incorrect and ineffective address, or a last known address ineffective because the parties have moved. The statute does not specify that for some reasons a reasonable and diligent inquiry will be done, and for others not — it simply indicates that whenever mail notice is undeliverable, a reasonable search and inquiry will be done before notice is published. Were the trial court’s findings carried to its logical conclusion, a record owner who failed to list an address on a deed would be subject to different notice requirements than a record owner who originally furnished an address which since had changed or otherwise become ineffective.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
HUNTLEY, Justice.
The central issue of this appeal is whether procedures undertaken by Blaine County were adequate to notify Hall, a property owner, prior to tax deficiency sale of his property.
The stipulated facts are as follows. In March, 1979, Charles Hall purchased a lot in Blaine County from LAM Enterprises. Hall took title by warranty deed, prepared by Sun Valley Title Company. The deed failed to list Hall’s address, despite the requirement of I.C. § 55-601 that a grantee’s name and address be on a deed. At the same time Hall executed a deed of trust in favor of Carl Curtis to secure payment of $24,000. At the request of Sun Valley Title Company the warranty deed and deed of trust were recorded in the Blaine County Recorder’s office. The deed of trust was acknowledged by Hall in Pit-kin County, Colorado, where he lived at the time.
Because neither recorded document contained Hall’s address, the Blaine County Assessor’s office, pursuant to its own internal policy, posted Hall’s address on the tax rolls as Box_, Ketchum, Idaho, 83340. The Blaine County Treasurer sent annual real estate tax notices for the years 1979 through 1982 to Hall at the Box_address. Reminder notices were also sent to that address. During this time, Hall continued to live in Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. - He did not receive any of the Blaine County annual tax statements, nor did he receive any of the reminder notices.
The property taxes went unpaid from 1979 through 1982. Consequently the Treasurer made a tax delinquency entry in 1980. In September, 1982, the Blaine County Treasurer sent a notice of pending issuance of tax deed for the subject property to Hall at the Box _ address by certified mail with return receipt requested. The notice was returned marked as undelivered. The Blaine County Treasurer then searched the county records and the local phone book and contacted the U.S. Post Office in Ketchum in an effort to obtain Hall’s address, but no address was found. Therefore the Treasurer published a copy of the notice of pending issuance of tax deed in the local Ketchum paper for four consecutive weeks in September and October of 1982; the last notice was published two months and twenty-two days before issuance of the tax deed. In January, 1983, the Treasurer executed a tax deed conveying property to Blaine County. [295]*295In May, 1983, Blaine County sold the property by quitclaim deed to the plaintiffs, Giacobbi and Stanek. Giacobbi and Stanek then filed suit to quiet title to the property. Stanek obtained Hall’s address from the Sun Valley Title Company in order to serve Hall with a complaint and summons in the quiet title action. At all times since the sale of the property in 1979 Sun Valley Title Company knew Hall’s address. Though the Blaine County Recorder’s office sometimes contacts title companies in order to locate a taxpayer’s address, it did not do so in this case.
Hall counterclaimed claiming Stanek and Giacobbi had no valid interest in the property, and cross-claimed against Blaine County on the ground that the County had failed to provide him proper notice of the tax deficiency thereby denying him due process.
The trial court entered judgment quieting title in Stanek and Giacobbi. It ruled that Hall did not use reasonable diligence by virtue of his having allowed the tax deficiencies to occur, in that he did not comply with I.C. § 55-601,1 and that equity could not allow voiding of the tax deed if the County had acted properly. The court further ruled the Blaine County Treasurer had acted properly in that she was required only to search the county records for an address for Hall. The court then concluded that I.C. § 63-1126B(1)(a)2 only requires the treasurer to send notice to an owner “at their last known address,” and that there was never a “last known address” for Hall because there had never been an address on the warranty deed. Only had there been an original address, the court stated, would I.C. §§ 63-1126B(l)(a) and (b), requiring a “reasonable and diligent search and inquiry in attempting to locate and serve the record owner” be applicable. Finally the court determined that the publication was adequate notice, and that Hall’s due process rights had not been violated.
Hall appeals contending the trial court erred as follows:
(1) In ruling that Hall’s failure to have his address on the deed constituted “unclean hands,” depriving him of the right to equitable relief, and that Hall’s failure to comply with I.C. § 55-601 relieved the County of the obligation under I.C. § 63-1126B to perform a reasonable and diligent search and inquiry for Hall’s address prior to issuing a tax deed;
(2) In failing to rule that:
the County Treasurer was required to search beyond county records in order to have performed a reasonable and diligent search and inquiry for Hall’s address pursuant to the requirements of I.C. § 63-1126(B)(1)(b).
We reverse for the following reasons.
Hall’s failure to comply with I.C. § 55-601 did not deprive him of the right to [296]*296equitable relief. In Gilbert v. Nampa School District No. 131, 104 Idaho 137, 657 P.2d 1 (1983) this Court described the doctrine of unclean hands as “conduct [that] has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent and deceitful as to the controversy in issue.” 104 Idaho at 145, 657 P.2d at 9. The record before us is devoid of facts which support a conclusion that Hall’s actions were in any way inequitable, unfair, and dishonest or fraudulent and deceitful to the County. There is no evidence that Hall either prepared the deed or had any intent that his address not be placed thereon. There is no evidence that he even noticed that his address was omitted. The unclean hands doctrine does not apply to merely negligent misconduct on the part of a taxpayer. Eresch v. Braecklein, 133 F.2d 12, 14 (10th Cir.1943).
Furthermore, Hall’s failure to include an address on the warranty deed did not relieve the County of its duty to comply with I.C. § 63-1126B in performing a reasonable and diligent search and inquiry to find Hall’s address and notify him prior to issuance of a tax deed. I.C. § 63-1126(B)(1)(b) states that “in the event that such notice is served [by registered or certified mail] and returned undelivered and after reasonable and diligent search and inquiry____” (Emphasis added.) Clearly the statute contemplates that certified or registered mail notice may be undeliverable, and may be so for any number of reasons: no address on the deed, an incorrect and ineffective address, or a last known address ineffective because the parties have moved. The statute does not specify that for some reasons a reasonable and diligent inquiry will be done, and for others not — it simply indicates that whenever mail notice is undeliverable, a reasonable search and inquiry will be done before notice is published. Were the trial court’s findings carried to its logical conclusion, a record owner who failed to list an address on a deed would be subject to different notice requirements than a record owner who originally furnished an address which since had changed or otherwise become ineffective. In both eases a notice would be returned undelivered, but the trial court would have concluded that in the first case the county has no duty to further attempt to locate the record owner, while in the second case the county would have a duty of diligent search and inquiry. This is an untenable distinction.
Hall further contends a reasonable and diligent search and inquiry pursuant to I.C. § 63-1126B requires the county treasurer to search beyond the county records for a record owner’s address. Hall asserts that Sun Valley Title Company had requested the warranty deed be recorded, that the title company’s name was on the deed, and that the title company at all times knew Hall’s address. Had the County contacted the title company, which the parties stipulated the County had done in other cases, Hall’s address would have been discovered.
Due process requires that in any proceeding by which a person can be deprived of life, liberty or property, there must be “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them the opportunity to present their objections [citations omitted]. The notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information____” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865, 873 (1950). In Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 103 S.Ct. 2706 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983), purchasers of real property at a tax sale were seeking to quiet title. At issue were notice requirements to a mortgagee when issuance of a tax deed was impending, pursuant to an Indiana statute requiring notice by certified mail to a property owner, but only publication notice to other interested parties, such as mortgagees. In holding that publication notice to a mortgagee was inadequate, the U.S. Supreme Court observed, referring to Mullane, that notice by publication was not reasonably calculated to provide actual notice of a pending proceeding, and was therefore inadequate to inform those who could be notified by [297]*297more effective means such as personal service or mailed notice. In the instant case, Hall’s interest in the property to be taken by tax deed was obviously greater than the interest of that of a mortgagee. Thus an even stronger case exists here that Hall is entitled to “notice reasonably calculated to apprise” him of the impending tax deed. The Court in Mennonite went on to explain that “unless the [owner] is not reasonably identifiable, constructive notice alone does not satisfy the mandate of Mullane.” Mennonite 103 S.Ct. at 2711.
Clearly, notice by publication is sufficient only where an interested party is not “reasonably identifiable”; for example, as cited in Mullane, supra, where a person is missing or unknown, or after diligent search, no address could be found for a missing person. Mullane, 70 S.Ct. at 658. In the instant case the County argues that notice by publication was proper, because a reasonable and diligent search of county records did not turn up Hall’s address, since Hall had not included an address on the warranty deed. The question before us, then, is whether in fact Hall was or was not “reasonably identifiable.”
I.C. § 63-1126B requires a reasonable and diligent search and inquiry for a record owner’s whereabouts before publication notice can be resorted to. This Court has not had occasion to interpret this requirement, but clearly a reasonable and diligent search and inquiry must be calculated to meet the minimum constitutional requirements as set forth by Mennonite and Mullane.
A reasonable and diligent inquiry is one a diligent person, intent upon ascertaining a fact, would ordinarily make; it is an inquiry made with good faith, to ascertain the truth, and to be as full as the circumstances of the situation will permit. See, Liepelt v. Baird, 17 Ill.2d 428, 161 N.E.2d 854 (1959); Black’s Law Dictionary 412, 1138 (rev. 5th ed.1979). The parties stipulated that the Blaine County Treasurer did the following in searching for Hall’s address:
(a) Searched the Treasurer’s Office change of address file;
(b) Searched the Treasurer’s Office correspondence file;
(c) Searched the Treasurer’s Office mortgagee file;
(d) Searched the Blaine County motor vehicle records;
(e) Searched the local telephone book;
(f) Contacted the United States Post Office for Ketchum; and
(g) Looked up the recorded Warranty Deed in the Blaine County Recorder’s Office.
The parties also stipulated that while the Treasurer does not have a policy of contacting a party at whose request a deed is recorded, or a grantor of a deed, or a beneficiary of a deed of trust, the Treasurer does sometimes contact title companies to locate a taxpayer’s address. The Treasurer did not do so in the instant case, though the warranty deed had been recorded at the request of Sun Valley Title Company, whose name was on the deed. The deed of trust, also filed at Sun Valley Title Company’s request, was acknowledged by Hall in Pitkin County, Colorado, his residence at all times relevant to this case.
The County’s search was neither reasonable nor diligent. The County Treasurer admittedly had contacted title companies before, and it would not have been unduly burdensome here for her to contact Sun Valley Title Company, whose name was plainly on the deed, and whose office was located in Blaine County. Further, a diligent examination of the deed of trust would have revealed the Pitkin County, Colorado acknowledgement by Hall. Respondents point out that much of Blaine County property is owned by out-of-state residents; the County therefore could reasonably have concluded from the out-of-state acknowledgement that Hall was one of those non-resident owners, especially since notices mailed in his name to the Ketchum, Idaho post office were returned undelivered. A contact with the Pitkin County officials or the telephone company [298]*298might well have revealed an address for Hall.
Respondents submit that the Blaine County Treasurer has no obligation to search beyond county records, and should not be required to contact non-county sources such as a title company. We observe, however, that in fact the County Treasurer was not here obliged to search beyond county records for information leading to an address for Hall; the name of Sun Valley Title Company, and the Colorado acknowledgement were both incorporated in deeds filed in county records. The County was neither diligent nor reasonable in not following up on “obvious” leads contained in county records which would clearly have led to Hall’s address.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings and entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.
Costs to appellant. No attorney fees on appeal.
DONALDSON, C.J., and BAKES and BISTLINE, JJ., concur.