Patrick v. Rice (N.M. Ct. App. 1991)
Citation: 1991-NMCA-063, 112 N.M. 285, 814 P.2d 463 · Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals · Decided: 1991
The cornerstone New Mexico due-process decision for tax sales. It holds that a tax sale is a government taking and that the state’s Property Tax Division has an affirmative duty of “diligent search and inquiry” to find a property owner’s correct address — a constitutional standard that goes beyond mere compliance with the statutory notice text. Notice mailed to a known-bad address, returned undeliverable, without checking information the Division already had, violates due process and the resulting tax deed is set aside. It anchors the new-mexico notice and void-vs-voidable analysis.
Facts
The New Mexico Property Tax Division mailed notices of an impending tax sale by certified mail to two of the plaintiffs’ former addresses. Both notices were returned as undeliverable. As of late October 1986, the plaintiffs’ correct address was sitting in the Division’s own computer files, where they were listed as owners of a contracting company. There was no evidence the Division ever checked that data bank or otherwise searched for the current address before proceeding to sell the property.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that a tax sale is a taking subject to constitutional due process, and that the Division has an affirmative duty to seek out, by “diligent search and inquiry,” the correct address of each property owner. The constitutional test is not the same as the statutory test: even assuming the Division followed the statute’s notice language, due process additionally asks whether reasonable diligence would have led to the discovery of the existing information — i.e., whether the identity and location of the party entitled to notice was “reasonably ascertainable.” Whether the new address was reasonably ascertainable is a question of law. Because the Division failed to check the correct address it already possessed, notice was constitutionally inadequate and the deed was set aside.
Reasoning
- A tax sale is a taking. It implicates the same due-process protections as any government deprivation of a property interest (mullane-v-central-hanover).
- Constitutional standard exceeds the statute. Mechanically mailing to a statutory address is not enough; the question is whether a reasonably diligent search would have uncovered the correct address.
- Reasonably ascertainable / question of law. Where the correct address is in the agency’s own records (here, its computer files), it is reasonably ascertainable, and failure to consult those records defeats due process.
Practical impact
- For the state / enforcing officer: New Mexico’s PTD must do more than mail to a stale address; when mail is returned, it must conduct a diligent search and inquiry, including checking records it already holds, before selling. Failure voids the deed.
- For former owners: A tax deed issued after notice to a known-bad address — with no diligent search — is vulnerable, and the two-year challenge bar of NMSA § 7-38-70 does not protect a sale that failed constitutional notice.
- For purchasers / quiet-title: This is the leading defect to examine in a New Mexico tax-deed chain. Returned-mail in the file without evidence of a diligent address search is a void-vs-voidable red flag that survives the limitations period.
Good-law status
Still good law. Decided 1991; the foundational New Mexico tax-sale due-process
precedent, repeatedly relied on (e.g., hoffman-v-state-taxation-revenue-dept).
Not overruled as of last_verified 2026-06-02; consistent with the later U.S. Supreme
Court decision jones-v-flowers (2006).
Why it matters
It is the New Mexico rule that a tax sale is a constitutional taking and that the state cannot extinguish ownership by mailing to an address it knows (or should know) is wrong — the diligent-search duty that makes returned-mail the most litigated defect in New Mexico tax-deed titles.
Related authorities
- hoffman-v-state-taxation-revenue-dept — applied Patrick where notice to an old address was returned and the new address was on file with the assessor.
- mullane-v-central-hanover — “reasonably calculated” notice standard.
- mennonite-v-adams — actual mailed notice to interests of record.
- jones-v-flowers — additional steps when certified mail is returned.
Applies in →
new-mexico (binding statewide).
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 2026-06-02.