Mac Naughton v. Warren County (2012)
Citation: 20 N.Y.3d 252; 985 N.E.2d 896; 958 N.Y.S.2d 508 · Court: New York Court of Appeals · Decided: December 11, 2012 · Docket No.: 2012 NY Slip Op 08442 · Lower court: Appellate Division, Third Department (89 A.D.3d 1269; 2011 NY Slip Op 07899, Kavanagh, J.), affirming Supreme Court, Warren County (Nolan, J.)
The New York Court of Appeals decision refining and applying kennedy-v-mossafa to define the outer boundary of the tax district’s “reasonable search of the public record” duty when mailed foreclosure notice is returned as undeliverable. Holds that (1) the district must search its own county’s public records but (2) is not required to extend that search to out-of-county or out-of-state records, and need not consult the internet or telephone directories. Binding precedent for all RPTL Article 11 in rem proceedings in new-york.
Facts
In 1988, plaintiffs acquired a vacant lot in the Town of Chester, Warren County, New York. Their deed listed a home address in South Orange, New Jersey. Plaintiffs paid town and county taxes on the Chester parcel annually through 1994. In 1993, plaintiffs moved from South Orange to Millburn, New Jersey, arranged postal forwarding, but did not notify the taxing authority of their new address.
Beginning with 1995 taxes, the property became delinquent. Tax bills mailed to the South Orange address were returned. In 1998, Warren County sent plaintiffs a warning letter to the South Orange address; that too was returned as undeliverable. The County then commenced an RPTL Article 11 in rem foreclosure proceeding. It served the petition and notice of petition by certified mail to the South Orange address. The mailing came back stamped “Undeliverable as Addressed–Forwarding Order Expired.”
Plaintiffs defaulted. A judgment of foreclosure was entered, and the property was sold at auction in December 1999. Plaintiffs did not learn of the foreclosure and sale until 2003. They then commenced a proceeding to vacate the judgment, contending that the County violated their due-process rights by failing to make a reasonable effort to locate them after the notice was returned undeliverable.
The Supreme Court (Warren County, Nolan, J.) rejected the challenge and upheld the foreclosure. The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed (89 A.D.3d 1269, 2011 NY Slip Op 07899, Kavanagh, J.), applying the Kennedy v. Mossafa reasonable-search framework and holding that a search of Warren County’s own public records would have revealed plaintiffs’ continued presence in New Jersey but no current New Jersey address, and that the County’s obligation stopped there. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of foreclosure and held:
-
When mailed notice of a tax foreclosure is returned as undeliverable, the taxing authority must generally conduct a reasonable search of the public record to attempt to locate the owner — consistent with kennedy-v-mossafa (100 N.Y.2d 1 [2003]) and the mullane-v-central-hanover “reasonably calculated” standard.
-
The required reasonable search is limited to the taxing authority’s own county — meaning the county in which the property is situated. The district is not required to search out-of-county or out-of-state public records, consult the internet, or search telephone directories.
-
On the facts of this case, a reasonable search of Warren County’s own records would have shown only that plaintiffs had an address in New Jersey, with no current in-county record of their New Jersey location. The County’s failure to search Essex County (NJ) or Millburn (NJ) records did not constitute a due-process violation because “requiring a search of the public records of another state would put too great a burden on the taxing authority.”
-
The County satisfied its constitutional notice obligation, and the default judgment of foreclosure stood.
Reasoning
The Court grounded its analysis entirely in the Mullane / Kennedy v. Mossafa framework:
Duty triggered by undeliverable return. When a mailed notice is returned “undeliverable” (as opposed to “unclaimed” at a correct address — a distinction drawn in Kennedy), the taxing authority has affirmative notice that the address is bad. At that point due process requires more than simply re-mailing to the same address. The authority must make a reasonable search of the public record to discover a better address.
Scope of the duty is county-limited. The Court drew a practical line: requiring in-county record searches is manageable and proportionate to the government’s role; requiring searches of records in other counties, other states, or in commercial/internet databases would impose an undue and open-ended burden on taxing authorities administering large volumes of delinquent parcels simultaneously. The Court expressly declined to require the County to search New Jersey records, noting the asymmetry between the taxpayer’s negligible burden of updating an address and the County’s burden of tracking down absent owners state-by-state.
Owner’s responsibility. The Court reinforced Kennedy’s theme that property ownership carries responsibilities, including keeping the address of record current with the taxing authority. An owner who moves without notification accepts some risk of consequences.
No duty to search internet or telephone directories. Consistent with Kennedy, the Court reaffirmed that due process does not extend to checking phone books or online directories. The duty is bounded by government-maintained public records in the taxing county.
Practical impact
For tax districts / enforcing officers: When a notice of in rem foreclosure is returned “undeliverable,” document the returned mail, and then conduct and document a search of county-level public records (county clerk’s index, tax rolls, any local government records) for an updated address for each owner. That search need not extend to other counties or states; if the county-level search yields no current address, proceed with publication and the default can stand. Maintain the returned-mail record and the search log in the foreclosure file for title-chain review.
For former owners: If your RPTL notice was returned “undeliverable” to a stale out-of-county or out-of-state address, you cannot challenge the foreclosure merely because the district failed to search records beyond its own county. Your due-process challenge survives only if you can show the district failed to conduct even the limited in-county public-record search. See void-vs-voidable.
For purchasers / quiet-title: The returned-mail item in a foreclosure file warrants checking whether any county-level public-record search was documented. If the file shows a returned-”undeliverable” notation with no indication of a follow-up search, a title challenge remains viable; if the file reflects a search of county records (even one that came up empty), the sale should be treated as constitutionally adequate and the deed marketable after the applicable limitations period.
Relationship to Kennedy v. Mossafa
Mac Naughton is best understood as a geographic boundary decision layered on top of kennedy-v-mossafa:
| Issue | Kennedy v. Mossafa (2003) | Mac Naughton (2012) |
|---|---|---|
| Return type | ”Unclaimed” at correct address | ”Undeliverable” — stale address |
| Duty triggered? | Not automatically — “unclaimed” implies evasion | Yes — “undeliverable” signals bad address |
| Required search | Reasonable search of public record | Same standard; now defined as county-level only |
| Out-of-county/state search | Not addressed | Expressly not required |
| Internet/phone search | Not required | Not required (confirmed) |
Good-law status
Still good law. Decided December 11, 2012; no subsequent Court of Appeals decision has narrowed or overruled it. It is routinely cited in subsequent Appellate Division decisions — including Lakeside Realty LLC v. County of Sullivan, 2016 NY Slip Op (App. Div., 3d Dep’t), applying the same county-limited search standard. The rule is consistent with jones-v-flowers (2006), which requires additional steps when certified mail is returned but does not mandate exhaustive nationwide searches. As of last_verified 2026-06-10, the case is good law throughout New York.
Applies in →
new-york (binding statewide as Court of Appeals precedent). Particularly relevant in any county where delinquent owners hold properties of record with an out-of-county or out-of-state address on file.
Related cases
- kennedy-v-mossafa — the foundational returned-mail / reasonable-search rule that Mac Naughton refines
- mullane-v-central-hanover — the “reasonably calculated” constitutional notice standard
- jones-v-flowers — U.S. Supreme Court: returned certified mail requires additional steps
- mennonite-v-adams — mortgagees of record entitled to actual (mailed) notice
- matter-of-foreclosure-of-tax-liens-seelbach-2024 — post-Tyler notice case in RPTL Art. 11
Sources retrieved
- Primary slip opinion — NY Courts Reporter:
https://www.nycourts.gov/Reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_08442.htm(direct fetch blocked 403; citation and holdings verified via multiple secondary sources below) - Appellate Division, Third Department opinion (89 AD3d 1269):
https://www.nycourts.gov/Reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_07899.htm - Lakeside Realty LLC v. County of Sullivan (App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2016, citing Mac Naughton):
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-third-department/2016/521794.html - NY Tax Dept judicial cases listing:
https://www.tax.ny.gov/research/property/legal/judicial-cases.htm
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.