ILNews

Judges uphold sale of properties in tax sale

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the denial of a property owner’s motion for relief from judgment after his two parcels were sold in a Marion County tax sale. The man argued the notices sent by officials didn’t comply with statutory requirements and he was denied due process.

In Booker T. Prince, Jr. v. Marion County Auditor and Marion County Treasurer, 49A02-1210-MI-835, Booker Prince owned adjoining parcels of land in Indianapolis: An apartment building was located on one parcel and a parking lot on the other. He relocated to California and provided the Marion County auditor with a post office box in California for correspondence. He also had an office in the apartment building but did not give the auditor the unit or number.

After Prince failed to pay taxes, in 2010 the auditor sent the notice of the tax sale, the notice of the right of redemption, and the notice of petition for tax deed to the apartment building, to Prince’s California post office box via certified mail and to Prince’s California post office box via first class mail. All of the notices sent to the apartment building were returned to the auditor indicating that the property was vacant. However, Prince received the notice of tax sale that was sent to his post office box via certified mail. None of the notices that the auditor sent to Prince’s post office box via first class mail were returned to the auditor.

Prince filed his motion for relief from judgment after learning from his apartment manager that people arrived at the building claiming to be the new owners. The trial court found the auditor’s efforts to notify Prince of the sale, redemption period and issuance of the tax deed were constitutionally and statutorily sufficient.

The government officials conceded that the application for judgment filed with the court lacked the dates of mailing of the pre-sale notice and the dates of publication for the parcels at issue. But the Court of Appeals concluded the officials nonetheless provided Prince with notice of the sale. He signed for the certified copy of the notice and admits to owing back taxes.

“While it would have been better for the court to require the officials to provide all of the information set forth in Indiana Code section 6-1.1-24-4.6(b), there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings and conclusions that the application substantially complied with the statutory requirements,” Senior Judge John Sharpnack wrote.

The appeals court also found the auditor substantially complied with the statutes governing notices and the manner of service the auditor chose was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise Prince of the pendency of the action and allow him a chance to object.

 

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT