In Jones v. Flowers , 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006), this Court held that "when mailed notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, the State must take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before sellin g his property, if it is practicable to do so."

Here, Walter Barnette owed $1,180 in property taxes and interest on his undeveloped land valued at $25,000 in Sarpy County, Nebraska. Sarpy County sold that debt to a priv ate investor. Nebraska law required the investor to send notice to Barnette, warning that if he failed to pay his debt, the County would administratively foreclose and transfer absolute title to the investor. The investor sent notice to Barnette's correct address in Council Bluffs, Iowa, by certified mail, which was returned unclaimed. The investor—who stood to profit more by taking title to the property than by receiving payment for the debt— published a notice in a Sarpy County newspaper and took no other steps to notify Barnette. The Nebraska Supreme Court held this sa tisfied due process. The questions presented are:

1. Did the Nebraska Supreme Court err in holding that the due process requirements announced in Jones apply only to land containing homes?

2. Does due process require a court to consider the potential windfall incentive of the party providing notice, and the magnitude of the owner's deprivation, when balancing "all the circumstances" to determine if attempts at notice are reasonable and what "one desirous of actually informing the absentee" would use? Jones , 547 U.S. at 225.

Did the Nebraska Supreme Court err in holding that the due process requirements announced in Jones v. Flowers apply only to land containing homes?