(concurring in result).
[¶ 29.] Although I concur based on Trown-sell’s conduct,6 I submit that Plocek v. Simpson, 75 S.D. 258, 63 N.W.2d 262 (1954), is neither good law nor merely “irrelevant” in light of Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983).
[¶ 30.] Mennonite requires “[n]otiee by mail or other means as certain to ensure *543actual notice ... if [party’s] name and address are reasonably ascertainable.” 462 U.S. at 800, 103 S.Ct. at 2712, 77 L.Ed.2d at 188. A party’s name and address may be “reasonably ascertainable” from sources other than the “last known address” known by the county treasurer. Therefore, Plocek’s holding that the treasurer is not obligated to look beyond the “last known address” when notice is returned to the sender cannot stand. Cf. Olivo v. United States, No. 96 Civ. 2620, 1997 WL 23181, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 1997):
Moreover, courts have not hesitated to find that where the first attempted notice is unsuccessful, but a person’s correct address can be obtained by the government through minimal effort, the failure to attempt a second notice violates due process.
See Aero-Medical, Inc. v. United States, 23 F.3d 328, 331 (10th Cir.1994); Montgomery v. Scott, 802 F.Supp. 930, 936-37 (W.D.N.Y.1992); 1 David B. Smith, Prosecution and Defense of Forfeiture Cases ¶ 9.03 (1996) (“In general, the courts have required seizing agencies and prosecutors to take reasonable steps to locate the owner of the property and where their first attempt at personal notice does not succeed, to try again.”).
. Trownsell does not deny receiving delinquent tax notices or the 1990 NITTD, which gave notice of an imminent sale, yet he did nothing to protect his interests.