ILNews

Insufficient notice voids tax deed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found a Carroll County man should be allowed to make a redemption payment to obtain five parcels of real estate owned by his mother that were put in a tax sale. The failure to comply with the statutes governing tax sales and redemption rendered void a tax deed on the properties assigned to someone else.

The land owned by Joshua Lindsey’s mother, who is deceased, was delinquent on taxes, so it was put in a tax sale on April 9, 2012. Lindsey had lived on the property for more than 40 years. The tax sale certificate was assigned to Adam Neher. Notices published in the local newspaper said the tax sale occurred April 11, as did a redemption notice addressed to Lindsey’s mother.

When Lindsey went to the auditor’s office to request a redemption amount on Aug. 9, 2012, he was told that the redemption period had expired one day earlier and he couldn’t make a payment. He challenged the issuance of the tax deed, which the trial court had ordered be issued to Neher on Oct. 11, 2012.

In Joshua Lindsey v. Adam Neher, 08A04-1211-MI-575, the COA agreed with Lindsey that the tax deed is void due to insufficient notice and that he was deprived of his constitutional right to due process. The actual and constructive post-sale notices failed to accurately reflect that the tax sale took place April 9, Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote, and so Lindsey wasn’t given a proper date upon which to calculate the redemption period.

The judges rejected Neher’s argument that because the notice was issued, the inaccuracy of the tax sale date is inconsequential and the redemption date must be mathematically calculated without regard to the content of the notices.

“If we held as Neher suggests – that so long as notices are issued and received, the statutory period runs without regard to the content of published notices or communications between parties – that holding could invite fraud in future cases. A party may not draft, publish, and mail erroneous information, making no correction before the lapse of a statutory period, and then benefit from the dissemination of falsity,” he wrote.

The judges ordered the Carroll County auditor to accept Lindsey’s redemption payment.

 

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. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT