Schlereth v. Hardy (2009)
Citation: 280 S.W.3d 47 (Mo. banc 2009) · Court: Supreme Court of Missouri, No. SC89402 · Decided: March 31, 2009 (Wolff, J.)
The controlling missouri decision applying jones-v-flowers to the RSMo § 140.405 redemption-notice requirement: a notice of the right to redeem sent to the former owner by certified mail and returned unclaimed is constitutionally insufficient, and the tax-sale purchaser must take additional reasonable steps before the collector’s deed can extinguish the owner’s interest.
Facts
James Schlereth bought a parcel that Jefferson County had sold at a delinquent-tax sale. As the purchaser, Schlereth was obligated under RSMo § 140.405 to notify the tax-delinquent former owner of the owner’s right to redeem before the collector’s deed could issue. Schlereth sent the redemption notice by certified mail, but the mailing was returned unclaimed — the former owner never retrieved it. Schlereth took no further steps to notify the owner and proceeded toward a collector’s deed.
Holding
The Missouri Supreme Court held that RSMo § 140.405 was unconstitutional as applied on these facts. Because a recipient’s failure to retrieve certified mail is not an affirmative refusal of notice, the returned-unclaimed letter did not satisfy due process. Under Jones v. Flowers, the purchaser was required to take additional reasonable steps that were practical under the circumstances before the redemption period could be cut off, and the collector’s-deed process could not stand on the single returned mailing.
Reasoning
- Quoting the recurring theme that “due process requires notice, but what notice will do?”, the Court grounded the analysis in Mullane (mullane-v-central-hanover) and Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (jones-v-flowers).
- Jones distinguishes mail refused by an addressee (which can be adequate) from mail returned unclaimed because it was never picked up; the latter signals to the sender that notice likely failed, triggering the duty of additional reasonable steps.
- Extinguishing the right to redeem is a deprivation of a significant property interest, so the purchaser — acting under a statutory scheme that delegates the notice duty — bore the obligation to do more than mail a single certified letter that came back.
Practical impact
- For investors / operators: A Missouri tax-sale purchaser cannot rely on a single certified mailing that is returned unclaimed to perfect a collector’s deed. Build in additional reasonable steps (re-mailing, skip-tracing, posting, or other practical inquiry) when redemption notice bounces; otherwise the deed is vulnerable to being voided and the former owner’s redemption right survives.
- For former owners: If your only “notice” of a Missouri tax sale was a certified letter you never received and never refused, Schlereth supports a challenge to the collector’s deed and may preserve your right to redeem.
Good-law status
Still good law as of last_verified 2026-06-02. A 2009 Supreme Court of Missouri
(en banc) decision; it remains the Missouri benchmark for § 140.405 redemption notice
and was not overruled in retrieval.
Source
- CourtListener (Supreme Court of Missouri opinion, 280 S.W.3d 47): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5280719/schlereth-v-hardy/
Why it matters
Schlereth is Missouri’s Jones v. Flowers — it makes returned-unclaimed redemption notice a fatal defect in the collector’s-deed process and is the first case a Missouri purchaser or former owner reaches for in a § 140.405 dispute.
Related
- missouri — RSMo Chapter 140 tax sales and redemption notice.
- jones-v-flowers — the federal returned-mail rule applied here.
- mullane-v-central-hanover — the underlying notice standard.
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.