Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-0993 Filed October 7, 2026 _______________ Unity Investment Group, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Muskie Holdings, LLC and Muskie Holdings, LLC PS Series 12, Defendants–Appellees. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, The Honorable Stacy Ritchie, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Jason A. Springer of Springer Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Madrid, attorney for appellant. Charles P. Augustine of Klatt, Augustine & Rastede, P.C., Waterloo, attorney for appellees. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Buller, J. 1 BULLER, Judge. Unity Investment Group, LLC (Unity) challenges the validity of a tax- sale deed, arguing neither the title holder nor party in possession of the property was properly served notice of redemption. Finding service complied with statutory requirements, we affirm. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS In December 2020, Unity purchased a property platted in the Barrett’s Estate Development (Barrett property) in Urbandale and recorded the deed two weeks later. But Unity failed to pay property taxes in 2021. In May 2022, the county sent a tax bill, a notice of delinquent taxes, and a notice of a tax sale to Unity at the company’s address listed on the deed. In June, Muskie Holdings, LLC (Muskie) purchased a tax sale certificate for the Barrett property at the county tax sale. Before Muskie could obtain its deed, it had to serve notice “upon the person in possession of the parcel, and also upon the person in whose name the parcel is taxed.” Iowa Code § 447.9(1) (2022). 1 The address listed for Unity on the deed was on Wilden Drive in Urbandale; it is also the address the county used for mailing the tax notices. Unity is a registered business entity with the Iowa Secretary of State; the registration listed its registered agent’s name and the address on Wilden Drive in Urbandale,2 also including a home office address on 132nd Street in Urbandale. The City of Urbandale also was using the registered agent’s address on Wilden Drive for Unity. In 1 “The law in effect at the time of tax sale governs redemption.” Iowa Code § 447.14; see also No Boundry, LLC v. Smithson, No. 22-0128, 2023 WL 3083569, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2023). 2 This address was changed in mid-September 2024 on the same date Unity filed its petition in this matter. 2 May 2024, Muskie sent the notice by certified mail to Unity at the Wilden Drive address and to “Parties in Possession” at the Barrett property’s address, as well as to the appropriate governmental entities, and filed a notice of service to those locations. No notice was sent to the 132nd Street address. On September 11, 2024, the county treasurer executed a deed in favor of Muskie, which was promptly filed with the Dallas County Recorder’s office. Five days after the tax deed was filed with the county recorder, Unity filed a petition to redeem the Barrett property and asked the court to declare Muskie’s tax deed void and invalid. That same day, Unity updated the Secretary of State’s records to show the registered agent’s address on Westport Drive in West Des Moines. Muskie moved for summary judgment, asserting notice of expiration of the right of redemption was served on Unity, no redemption occurred, and their tax title was valid. Unity resisted, asserting Muskie failed to complete service of notice on Unity and the party in possession—its home builder, Customs by Ramey, LLC (Ramey). Unity amended its petition (with permission of the court) to add Ramey as a co-plaintiff with related claims that Muskie failed to serve notice on Ramey. Unity then cross-moved for summary judgment based on its statement of facts that Ramey was not served and that Muskie had made no claim of having served Ramey. Muskie amended its answer and renewed its motion for summary judgment to address the new claims as to Ramey. Muskie’s evidence included affidavits from the its president and its attorney attesting to the steps taken to effectuate service, the expiration of Ramey’s building permit in April 2024 before service occurred, notices from the city relating to inspection and yard 3 upkeep addressed to Unity at the Wilden Drive address or the Barrett property address, and the general lack of any indicia of occupation or construction around the property. Unity submitted affidavits establishing the manager of Unity, Don Kwan, had an office on Westown Parkway for a different company. Kwan’s affidavit stated Unity and his financial company “use the same office” on Westown Parkway and that Muskie’s attorney knew he was Unity’s manager, knew his office location, had visited that office, and had referred clients to him for tax preparation. Kwan’s affidavit noted Unity’s registered agent had been at the Wilden Drive address until July 2022, when that property was sold. Unity also submitted a Certificate of Occupancy approved by the City of Urbandale in September 2024 listing the contractor and using the contractor’s phone and email.3 After a brief hearing, the court ruled on the motions for summary judgment. The district court ruled the notice to Unity was proper, finding “Iowa Code section 447.9(1) only requires that notice be sent to the last known address of the title-holder; it does not require that notice be sent to every potential and possible address” from a records search. The court observed “[i]t was incumbent upon Unity to update and ensure that the Dallas County offices had its most current mailing address,” and that Unity “should be well accustomed to the nuances of property tax filings and payment processes.” As to notice on Ramey, the court considered the physical inspections by and affidavits from Muskie’s president and attorney that they saw no sign of activity or possession, the lack of any advertisement by Ramey or any indication of continuing presence at the property, and a lack 3 The building permit and Certificate of Occupancy listed the owner as “Barretts Estate, LLC” and used the Barrett property’s address for the owner. 4 of details about the tools alleged to have been left behind. The court specifically noted “Iowa law only requires a diligent inspection, it does not mandate extraordinary effort” to determine a potential possessor’s presence. Therefore, the notice mailed to the property address was sufficient for the party in possession. Because notice was properly served, the court entered judgment finding “all rights of redemption have terminated, and the validity of the tax title is conclusively established” in Muskie as a matter of law. Unity appeals, contesting the court’s rulings on service to both Unity and Ramey.4 STANDARD OF REVIEW “Our review in summary-judgment appeals is for correction of errors at law.” Fennelly v. A-1 Mach. & Tool Co., 728 N.W.2d 163, 167 (Iowa 2006). Because the parties present no genuine issues of material fact, we review only the court’s judgment as a matter of law. Overturff v. Raddatz Funeral Servs., Inc., 757 N.W.2d 241, 244–45 (Iowa 2008). DISCUSSION Unity argues a genuine issue of material fact exists whether Muskie conducted a diligent search to send notice of the tax sale and redemption right. Following a tax sale, the holder of the certificate of purchase may cause to be served upon the person in possession of the parcel, and also upon the person in whose name the parcel is taxed, a notice signed by the certificate holder or the certificate 4 Although Ramey was represented by the same counsel, the notice of appeal was only filed on behalf of Unity. So Unity is the only proper appellant to the appeal despite Ramey’s inclusion on the Unity briefing. 5 holder’s agent or attorney, stating the date of sale, the description of the parcel sold, the name of the purchaser, and that the right of redemption will expire and a deed for the parcel be made unless redemption is made within ninety days from the completed service of the notice. The notice shall be served by both regular mail and certified mail to the person’s last known address and such service is deemed completed when the notice is deposited in the mail and postmarked for delivery. Iowa Code § 447.9(1). Service “shall be made” on any mortgagee with a lien, a vendor “under a recorded contract of sale,” a lessor with a recorded lease, and “any other person who has an interest of record.” Id. § 447.9(2). Unity concedes the county assessor’s and treasurer’s offices are reasonable places to inquire to find the owner’s last known address. In addition to county records, our court has found a party could reasonably determine “that the official last known address for the compan[y] was the one listed with the Secretary of State.” Revenant Cap., LLC v. Iowa Cash Buyers, LLC, No. 20-0948, 2021 WL 1399780, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2021). Under all these records, the contact point provided in this case was the registered agent and the Wilden Drive address; the manager’s name was not included in any of the filings. And under Iowa Code section 489.119(1), an LLC (like Unity) “may be served . . . by serving its registered agent.” See also Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.305(6) (allowing service on corporate entities by serving “any agent or person now authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of original notice”). If the certificate holder sends the “notice to the landowner’s last known address by both regular mail and certified mail[,] [t]his combination of mailings is reasonably calculated to provide the landowner with actual notice of the ninety-day period and, therefore, an opportunity to timely respond. This satisfies due process.” Kluender v. Plum Grove Invs., Inc., 985 N.W.2d 466, 471 (Iowa 2023) (internal citation omitted). The Kluender court 6 further explained that the regular-mail requirement increased the chance of notice through forwarded mail. See id. at 472. Even if certified mail notices are returned and if the regular mail notices are not returned, a certificate holder is “entitled to assume that the United States Postal Service had done its job by delivering the ninety-day notice . . . via regular mail.” Id. at 473 (noting if all mailings are returned undelivered due process may require additional steps). And the notices here were sent by first class mail and by certified mail to each addressee. The certified mail to Unity was returned to sender with a note “Forward Expired,” but there is no evidence indicating the notice by regular mail was returned as undelivered. Unity argues Muskie’s attorney knew Don Kwan was Unity’s manager and that he conducted business at a Westown Parkway address, regardless of the Wilden Drive address being the last known address of its registered agent and the address in the county’s, city’s, and secretary of state’s records. According to Unity and Kwan, the attorney had worked with him under both of his entities over the years. But neither the Westown Parkway address nor Kwan’s name appeared on any of the governmental documents related to the Barrett property or Unity. Muskie sent notice to the only address Unity used in its registration of the property with the county, in its interactions with the city, or the business’s registration with the state. All the official documents for the LLC only provide the agent as a contact point. Given all the governmental records include the same address on Wilden Drive, we find Muskie was entitled to rely upon those resources to determine the last known address of the owner. We affirm the district court’s ruling that Muskie’s actions fulfilled the requirements of Iowa Code section 447.9 as to the title holder. 7 As to the party in possession question, Unity and Ramey never claimed the notice was not delivered to the address in question or that any party in possession could not have retrieved the mail at any time. In June, the sheriff’s office served notice of the affidavit at the Barrett property. Ramey’s construction permit had expired the month before notice was mailed, and Ramey does not appear to have taken any measures to extend the permit. The house appeared complete, if vacant. And Muskie and its attorney saw no indicia of habitation, despite Ramey’s claim construction material and tools were left behind. As the district court noted, the record lacks any details of the “left behind” tools or evidence any tools were stolen. The statute does not require notice to the most recent party in possession, just notice to the party in fact in possession. And Ramey offers no argument on appeal that it was in possession at the time of the notice—Ramey opted not to appeal. We think under these circumstances, where there is no record of any party in possession, notice sent to the address itself was sufficient to meet the requirements under section 447.9. Because the service of notice complied with the requirements of Iowa Code section 447.9(1), we affirm. AFFIRMED. 8