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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT