Bogart v. Lathrop (1974)
Citation: 90 Nev. 230, 523 P.2d 838 · Court: Nevada Supreme Court · Decided: June 20, 1974 · Author: Mowbray, J. (for the Court)
The Nevada Supreme Court’s foundational ruling on tax-sale notice: failure to provide the statutorily required mailed notice to the taxpayer is a jurisdictional defect that renders the tax deed and underlying sale void — not merely voidable — and cannot be cured by the general-irregularities savings clause of NRS 361.590. The case establishes the controlling void/voidable distinction that governs notice challenges to Nevada tax deeds.
Facts
On August 1, 1960, the Administrator of General Services, acting for the United States of America, executed a quitclaim deed conveying a parcel of land in Lyon County, Nevada to James H. Lathrop and Yvonne Lathrop as grantees.
The Lathrops financed the purchase with a promissory note secured by a deed of trust on the property. Approximately one year after acquiring the property, Lathrop contacted the Lyon County Assessor and was told the parcel was not yet on the tax rolls. The property was subsequently assessed and placed on the rolls. However, it is conceded in the record that the Lathrops were never mailed any notice of the assessments, of the delinquency, of the tax deed issued to the county treasurer as trustee, of the tax sale, or of their right to redeem.
Taxes became delinquent. In 1965, Punty J. Bogart purchased the property at tax sale. The Lathrops did not discover the sale until 1970, when they finished paying off their promissory note and sought tax information in connection with that payoff. The Lathrops commenced an action in district court to set aside as void the 1965 tax sale and the tax deed issued to Bogart.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Lathrops. Bogart appealed.
Holding
The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.
-
Failure to mail notice = jurisdictional defect = void deed. NRS 361.565 requires notice by publication and notice by mail to each respective taxpayer at the taxpayer’s last known address. The failure to give the required mailed notice is not a mere procedural irregularity — it is a jurisdictional defect that renders all subsequent proceedings, including the tax sale and tax deed, void.
-
NRS 361.590 does not cure jurisdictional defects. Bogart argued that NRS 361.590 — which provides a general presumption of validity for tax proceedings and renders irregularities in form or mode non-invalidating — cured the notice failure. The court rejected that argument. NRS 361.590 cures only defects in form or mode; it does not and cannot cure a jurisdictional failure to comply with mandatory notice requirements. Only the latter category of defect (void deed) falls outside the savings clause.
-
Reasonable inquiry required. The court held that the county was not absolved by the absence of a known address in its files. The Lathrops’ address was part of the public record in Lyon County (given the prior deed-of-trust transaction). “A reasonable inquiry to determine the address of the taxpayer is required.” The county’s failure to make that inquiry and mail notice was fatal.
Reasoning
The court grounded its analysis in the statutory text of NRS 361.565, which at the time required notice by publication and mailed notice to the taxpayer at the taxpayer’s last known address when taxes are delinquent. The court quoted the statute as requiring “that notice by mail be given to each respective taxpayer at such person’s last known address.”
The court then drew a sharp doctrinal line between two categories of notice defects:
- Jurisdictional defects (failure to give the required mailed notice): render the entire tax-sale proceeding void. A void deed conveys no title and is subject to collateral attack at any time; the 3-year limitation of NRS 361.600 does not bar such a challenge.
- Defects in form or mode of notice (e.g., irregularities in how, when, or where publication occurred, so long as the required notice was attempted): do not void the deed; they are cured by NRS 361.590, making the deed merely voidable (and subject to the 3-year limitation period).
The court then addressed due process: “In order to satisfy the minimum requirements of due process, there must be a compliance with the statutory requirements of notice.” The conceded absence of any mailed notice, combined with the fact that the Lathrops’ address was obtainable from public county records, left the county with no valid basis to claim the notice obligation was fulfilled.
Because the defect was jurisdictional, neither NRS 361.590’s savings clause nor the passage of time cured it. The tax deed to Bogart was void ab initio.
Practical impact
For investors / purchasers at Nevada tax sales:
- A Nevada tax deed is not unassailable by virtue of the county’s issuance; the controlling question is whether the mailed notice required by NRS 361.565 was actually provided to the prior owner at their last known address.
- Where no mailed notice was sent and the owner’s address was reasonably obtainable from public records, the deed is void, not voidable — meaning it can be challenged at any time, the 3-year NRS 361.600 bar does not apply, and a purchaser from the tax-sale buyer receives nothing.
- Title insurance for Nevada tax deeds is standard market practice precisely because of the Bogart void-deed risk. Insurers will investigate the notice record before issuing coverage.
- A quiet-title action under NRS 40.010 is the ordinary vehicle for clearing a Bogart-type cloud on title.
For former owners / delinquent taxpayers:
- If you never received mailed notice of delinquency, a tax deed, a tax sale, or your right to redeem, the sale may be void under Bogart regardless of how long ago it occurred.
- The Lathrops discovered the sale ten years after it happened and were still able to challenge it successfully.
- The burden in a quiet-title action is on the challenger to show the notice failure affirmatively; gather evidence from the county treasurer’s records about whether any notice was mailed and to what address.
Void vs. voidable in practice:
| Defect type | Effect on deed | NRS 361.590 cure? | Time bar? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to mail notice (NRS 361.565) — jurisdictional | Void | No | No (NRS 361.600 inapplicable) |
| Defect in form/mode of notice | Voidable | Yes (NRS 361.590) | Yes (NRS 361.600 2-year bar) |
Good-law status
Still good law. Bogart v. Lathrop has not been overruled or narrowed as of last_verified 2026-06-10. The void/voidable distinction it established remains the controlling framework in Nevada for tax-deed notice challenges. The Nevada Supreme Court has cited and applied the jurisdictional-defect rule in subsequent decisions, including the 2016 HOA super-priority lien litigation (see bourne-valley-court-trust-v-wells-fargo-2016) and title marketability cases involving nevada tax sales.
The underlying statute (NRS 361.565) has been amended and recodified; as of 2026 it continues to require mailed notice to taxpayers. The NRS 361.590 savings clause remains in force in substantially its original form. The Bogart rule — jurisdictional failures void the deed; form defects are cured — remains the operative standard.
Applies in →
nevada — state-law holding construing NRS 361.565 and NRS 361.590. The due-process rationale also maps onto the federal backdrop established by mullane-v-central-hanover (notice must be reasonably calculated to reach the party) and jones-v-flowers (returned certified mail requires additional reasonable notice steps).
Related cases
- mullane-v-central-hanover — federal due process standard: notice must be “reasonably calculated” to reach the interested party
- jones-v-flowers — returned certified mail obligates the state to take additional reasonable notice steps; reinforces Bogart’s reasonable-inquiry rule
- mennonite-v-adams — mortgagees of record entitled to actual (mailed) notice; same due-process principle
- bourne-valley-court-trust-v-wells-fargo-2016 — Nevada HOA super-priority lien context; related Nevada title-defect landscape
- sfr-investments-pool-1-v-us-bank — HOA super-priority lien (NRS 116.3116) in Nevada; distinct issue but intersects on title marketability after non-judicial foreclosure
Sources retrieved
- vLex case-law page — Bogart v. Lathrop, 90 Nev. 230, 523 P.2d 838 (1974), case ID 888737978:
https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/bogart-v-lathrop-no-888737978(Full opinion facts, holding, statute citations, and authoring justice confirmed from this source — retrieved 2026-06-10) - WebSearch confirming citation, court, parties, and holding — retrieved 2026-06-10.
- NRS 361.565 — Nevada Revised Statutes, official Legislature site:
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-361.html#NRS361Sec565 - NRS 361.590 — Nevada Revised Statutes, nevada.public.law:
https://nevada.public.law/statutes/nrs_361.590 - Clark County Treasurer — Notice of Delinquent Taxes / NRS 361.565 administrative overview:
https://www.clarkcountynv.gov/government/elected_officials/county_treasurer/notice-of-delinquent-taxes-nrs-361-565
Legal information, not legal advice. This page summarizes a court decision for educational purposes and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Verify against the primary opinion and consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before acting. Last verified 2026-06-10.