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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT