ILNews

COA rules in favor of tax sale bidder in dispute over property

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ordered that tax deeds be reinstated and reversed summary judgment and a decree of foreclosure in favor of a bank in a combined appeal over foreclosed property in Elkhart County.

The COA ruled on the two cases in Anthony J. Iemma, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Successor by Merger with Bank One, N.A., 20A03-1207-MF-326. Cause No. 188 deals with Chase Bank’s grant of partial summary judgment and foreclosure of property at 1034 East Jackson Blvd. in Elkhart; Cause No. 41 deals with the setting aside of LRB Holdings’ tax deeds purchased on the same two lots at that address. Anthony and Sandra Iemma entered into a mortgage with Bank One-Merrillville in 1997. The recorded mortgage lists two addresses – one for Bank One-Merrillville in Merrillville; the other under the heading “When recorded mail to:” that was for Bank One-Indianapolis in Indianapolis. Chase Bank became successor-by-merger of Bank One in 2004.

The Iemmas defaulted on the mortgage and did not pay taxes on the property in question. Chase sought to foreclose; LRB as successful bidder at the tax sale, sent notices to Chase through its attorneys on the foreclosure case after the mail sent to Bank One-Merillville was returned as undeliverable. It did not mail notice to the Bank One-Indianapolis address.

LRB appealed the ruling in favor of Chase, arguing the trial court erred in determining the tax deeds should be set aside because LRB failed to comply with statutory notice requirements, due process requirements and statutory property description requirements.

The trial court concluded that LRB was required to send notices to mortgagee Bank One-Merrillville, but also to the bank in Indianapolis. But the mortgage did not indicate that Bank One-Indianapolis was a person with a substantial property interest of public record on the Elkhart property, Judge Rudy Pyle III wrote. As such, LRB had no responsibility under statute to give notice to the Indianapolis office.

The judges found LRB complied with due process requirements by taking the extra step of mailing notice to the attorneys involved in the foreclosure action. The trial court also erred as a matter of law by concluding that the notices were not in substantial compliance with I.C. 6-1.1-25- 4.5.

“In this opinion, we have decided the Cause No. 41 tax sale deed issues in favor of LRB and against Chase Bank. LRB is the owner of the two lots with a common address of 1034 East Jackson Boulevard, Elkhart, IN 46516, and there is no longer any basis for the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and foreclosure in Cause No. 188. Accordingly, the trial court’s order should be set aside,” Pyle wrote.

 

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT