The state attempted to notify Gary of the delinquency and of his right to redeem the property. It mailed a certified letter to him at the address of the subject property. Since nobody was home to sign for the letter, it was returned to the state marked "unclaimed." Two years later, and only weeks before the property was sold to pay the taxes, the state published a newspaper notice of public sale of the property. A buyer came forward, and the state sent Gary another certified letter stating that his house would be sold if the taxes were not paid. It, too, was returned unclaimed to the state. Only when the new owner served a notice on Gary's daughter at the house did Gary finally learn about the tax sale, but it was after the fact.

Gary sued the state, arguing that the state had sold his property for taxes without first affording him procedural due process, and the United States Supreme Court agreed with him. The Court did not lay down an ironclad rule on what procedures are to be followed in all cases. It did say that, upon the return of a notice as undeliverable, the government must take additional, reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice before it takes the drastic step of extinguishing someone's interest in his or her property.

While the extent of what is required will vary with the particular circumstances, the Court's comments indicate that it hardly expects the government to put a detective on the case of a "missing" property owner. Open-ended requirements, such as searching a telephone book or other government records, are not required of the government. But it is not too much to ask the government to do, in the Court's words, "a bit more." There were some follow-up options that the state should have explored and used. They include such simple measures as sending a notice by regular mail, for which no signature is required, posting the notice on the front door, or addressing the otherwise undeliverable mail to "occupant." Presumably, even a non-owner occupant would alert the owner of such a notice. The Court drew an analogy to a state official handing notices meant for delinquent taxpayers to a mail carrier, then watching as they were accidentally dropped down a storm drain. One would expect new notices to be prepared and sent again. Just as it would be unreasonable for the official under those circumstances simply to shrug his shoulders and say, "I tried," the state in Gary's case owed him more than inaction when the notices meant for him were returned "unclaimed."