Case Explained: BLAKE WARNER v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-08-17 Docket: 8:22-cv-01977-MSS-SPF The eleventh-circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment ruling. The court held that Florida Statute § 116.21 is not facially unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause, but its application to Plaintiff Blake Warner was unconstitutional because the Hillsborough County Clerk failed to provide notice reasonably calculated to reach him. Specifically, the court found the Clerk’s reliance on publication in a predominantly Spanish-language newspaper serving less than 0.2% of the county and continued mailing of letters to an address where the Clerk had received thirteen return-to-sender notices was insufficient. The court applied the standard from *Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.* and *Jones v. Flowers*, ruling that when the government knows or should know a property owner’s whereabouts, it must use more direct means of notice, such as the email address and phone number available in the state’s e-file system which the Clerk could have accessed. Furthermore, the court reversed the district court on Warner’s Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claim. The court held that the Clerk effected an unconstitutional taking because there was no valid evidence that Warner abandoned his funds. Under Florida law, abandonment requires a voluntary intention to relinquish property, and the Clerk could not presume such intent based on Warner’s failure to respond to constitutionally deficient notice. Consequently, the taking of the funds for public use without just compensation violated the Fifth Amendment. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.