This opinion concerns an appeal regarding the City of Auburn’s acquisition of property through tax lien foreclosure. The defendant, Samuel Mandarelli, acquired the property from Katherine Mandarelli after a tax lien certificate was recorded for unpaid 1968 municipal taxes.

The court addresses three main arguments from the defendant:

• Procedural Due Process: Mandarelli argued that the notice provisions of the tax lien statute (36 M.R.S.A., §§ 942 and 943) violated his due process rights because they did not require personal service. The court rejects this, reaffirming its prior decision in Inhabitants of Town of Warren v. Norwood, which held that the notice requirements (delivery in hand, at last known abode, or by registered mail, plus recording in the registry of deeds) are sufficient for tax collection proceedings. The court distinguishes this from cases involving prejudgment seizures, emphasizing the state’s interest in speedy tax collection.
• Substantive Due Process/Taking Without Just Compensation: Mandarelli contended that the city’s retention of property valued significantly higher than the tax debt constituted a taking without just compensation. The court, citing Nelson v. City of New York, finds that retaining the surplus value is not a constitutional violation when proper notice was given and the landowner failed to act.
• Unjust Enrichment: Mandarelli argued that the court should impose a constructive trust on the excess value, applying the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment. The court rejects this, stating that the Legislature intended an automatic loss of title upon non-payment and non-redemption. It concludes that no duty arose for the municipality to account for any surplus value, as the defendant lost his rights by failing to comply with the statutory requirements for redemption.

The court denies the appeal, reaffirming that the tax lien certificate statute does not violate procedural due process and that the Legislature has the constitutional power to cut off the interest of a delinquent owner who fails to redeem. The court notes that any amelioration of the statute’s “oppressiveness” must come from the Legislature, not the courts.

Summary by Gemini