Reasonably Calculated Notice Meets Due Process in Tax Sales; Sovereign Immunity Bars Invalid Claims

Introduction

This case arises from Tommy Land’s role as Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands and the contested sale of property owned by BAS, LLC, for unpaid taxes. BAS, a California LLC, argued that Land failed to provide constitutionally adequate notice before selling its Arkansas commercial property to recover delinquent taxes. The Greene County Circuit Court denied the Commissioner’s summary-judgment motion based on sovereign immunity, finding disputed facts about notice. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the undisputed facts show the notice was “reasonably calculated” to inform BAS and that sovereign immunity thus bars BAS’s due-process and takings claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that certified mail to BAS’s deed address, combined with USPS tracking confirming delivery, satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process requirement of “notice reasonably calculated” to reach BAS.
Because BAS could not establish an illegal or unconstitutional act by Land, sovereign immunity barred its official‐capacity suit for injunctive relief.
The Court rejected BAS’s attempt to recast its due-process claim as a Fifth Amendment or Arkansas constitutional takings claim—tax sales are not “takings” within those provisions when conducted under statutory authority with constitutionally adequate notice.
The Supremacy Clause does not override sovereign immunity where there is no valid federal‐law violation on the merits.
The judgment of the circuit court was reversed and summary judgment granted to the Commissioner.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Ark. Const. art. 5, § 20 – “The State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts.”
Ark. Dep’t of Fin. & Admin. v. Lewis (2021 Ark. 213) – sovereign immunity bars suits against state officials in their official capacities.
Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ark. v. Andrews (2018 Ark. 12) – reaffirmed the text of article 5, section 20 and its near-absolute bar on suits against the State.
Osage Creek Cultivation, LLC v. Ark. Dep’t of Fin. & Admin. (2023 Ark. 47) – recognized a narrow exception to sovereign immunity for injunctive relief against ultra vires, unconstitutional, or illegal acts by state officials.
Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) – due process requires notice “reasonably calculated” under all circumstances and additional steps if the government knows its mail notice failed.
Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002) – actual notice is not required; reasonable steps suffice.
Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (1983) – mailed notice to a reasonably ascertainable address is normally “virtually certain” to give actual notice.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the following principles:

Arkansas sovereign immunity bars official-capacity suits unless there is a valid claim of an ultra vires, unconstitutional, or illegal act by a state official.
Federal due process requires notice “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties” before a property is sold for tax delinquency.
Mailed certified notice to the owner’s last known address ordinarily satisfies due process, unless the government knows or has reason to suspect that notice failed and then fails to take available additional steps.
Here, the Commissioner sent certified mail to BAS’s recorded deed address, requested a return receipt, and—when that receipt did not return—checked the USPS tracking data, which showed delivery to a front desk or mail facility at the Tarzana address.
There was no evidence the Commissioner knew the address was inaccurate or had reason to doubt the tracking information. He was not required to investigate whether the recipient’s building actually had a mailroom.
Because due process was satisfied as a matter of law, BAS failed to allege an unconstitutional or illegal act to overcome sovereign immunity.
The takings claims under the Fifth Amendment and Arkansas Constitution also failed—tax sales are statutory remedies, not “takings” within those provisions when due process notice is met.
The Supremacy Clause argument was rejected: absent a meritorious federal claim, Arkansas’s immunity provision does not yield to federal law.

Impact

Clarifies that certified mail with tracking confirming delivery to a last known address satisfies due process notice requirements for tax-delinquency sales.
Reaffirms the narrow scope of Arkansas’s sovereign immunity exception: plaintiffs must show a valid unconstitutional or illegal act before suing state officials in their official capacities.
Limits attempts to convert due-process complaints into takings claims in the context of tax sales.
Signals that courts will not require exhaustive investigations by state officials absent clear indications that mailed notice failed.
Encourages property owners to keep updated addresses on file to avoid losing statutory safeguards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sovereign Immunity: The State (and its officials acting in their official capacity) cannot be sued unless the Constitution or statutes explicitly allow it, or the official acts unconstitutionally or illegally.
Due Process Notice: The Fourteenth Amendment does not demand actual notice; it demands reasonable steps—like certified mail—to inform owners of government actions affecting their property.
“Last Known Address” Rule: Statutes often require notice at the owner’s “last known address.” If that address is on record and statutorily correct, mail there is presumptively sufficient.
Return Receipt vs. Tracking: A missing signed receipt does not prove notice failed. Tracking data showing delivery can substitute to confirm that mail reached the address.
Tax Sale vs. Taking: Selling property for unpaid taxes is a statutory enforcement tool, not a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment or state constitutional takings clause.

Conclusion

The Arkansas Supreme Court's decision in Tommy Land v. BAS, LLC establishes that certified-mail notice to an owner’s last known address, corroborated by USPS tracking data, is constitutionally sufficient to satisfy due process before a tax-delinquency sale. Because the Commissioner took those reasonable steps and there was no unconstitutional or illegal act, sovereign immunity bars BAS’s suit. The ruling reaffirms the limited exception to sovereign immunity in Arkansas and clarifies the practical reach of due-process notice requirements for tax sales.