ILNews

COA: Questions remain whether proper notice given after tax sale

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals, citing several questions of fact in a case involving a tax sale, affirmed denial of summary judgment for a mortgagee that sought to set aside the issuance of a tax deed.

WM Specialty Mortgage LLC issued a mortgage to Raymond Gresham on real estate in English, Ind. At issue is a 4.5-acre tract of land in which WM foreclosed but never was put through a sheriff’s sale. Due to delinquent property taxes, the land went through a tax sale, at which Marcus Burgher purchased it.

He sent notice of the sale and the right of redemption, referred to as the 4.5 Notice, and notice of his filing for a tax deed, referred to as the 4.6 Notice, to the California address listed for WM in its foreclosure complaint and the address on record with the county. The 4.6 Notice came back as undeliverable. The trial court ordered the county auditor to issue the tax deed to Burgher, who later transferred title of the real estate to Darrell and Barbara Calhoun via a quitclaim deed. WM then filed a motion to intervene and sought to set aside the tax sale and tax deed.

WM at first argued the California address was not its correct address to mail the notice, but later conceded it was. WM then argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because Burgher couldn’t prove he mailed the 4.5 notice via certified mail and he should have taken additional steps once he learned WM didn’t receive the 4.6 notice. First American was later substituted as intervenor after WM assigned its rights to the company. The Calhouns were substituted in place of Burgher because he sold the real estate to them.  The trial court denied summary judgment for First American, and the case went before the Court of Appeals on interlocutory appeal.

First American had the burden to rebut the presumption of the validity of the tax deed, but instead moved for summary judgment, claiming that Burgher wouldn’t be able to prove he complied with statute. This is not enough to meet its burden on summary judgment, Judge Rudolph Pyle III wrote in First American Title Insurance Company v. Darrell Calhoun and Barbara Calhoun, Successors to Marcus Burgher III, for Issuance of Tax Deed, 13A01-1304-MI-177.

First American argued that its failure to update its address in the county records has no effect on the results of this case, citing Jones. In Jones, the Supreme Court of the United States 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 selling his property, if it is practicable to do so.” But the Indiana Supreme Court has clarified that the additional steps the state must take specifically applies to pre-tax sale notice sent to property owners and not to a party with a substantial property interest, such as mortgagees, Pyle wrote.

The judges noted there are questions of fact regarding the constitutional adequacy of the 4.6 Notice and regarding the balancing of the parties’ interests as well as whether Burgher gave notice in a manner reasonably calculated to inform WM of the issuance of the tax deed. As such, the trial court properly denied WM Mortgage’s/First American’s motion for summary judgment.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT