ILNews

Justices to review whether sewer lien can trigger tax sale

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will review the question of whether a sewer lien placed on a property for unpaid bills is by itself sufficient for the property to be sold at tax sale to satisfy the debt.

Justices agreed to review the question when they granted transfer in In Re: The Carroll County 2012 Tax Sale Twin Lakes Regional Sewer District v. Steven E. Hruska, Virginia Hanna, and Equity Trust Company FBO #80677 and Carroll County, Indiana, by and through the Caroll County Auditor, 08S02-1402-MI-78.

Carroll Circuit Court ruled in favor of Steven Hruska and Virginia Hanna and removed their properties from a county tax sale list. Twin Lakes Regional Sewer District appealed, arguing that the trial court misread I.C. 13-26-14-4, but the Indiana Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the trial court ruling. The COA held the sewer district could sue to collect on the late fees but lacked authority to seek a county tax sale.

The statute explicitly says, “A lien under this chapter that is the only lien on a property may not be foreclosed.” The Court of Appeals opinion observed in a footnote, however, that the Indiana Regional Sewer District Association filed an amicus brief in the case arguing the “misinterpretation of Ind. Code § 13-26-14-4 by the trial court and its application to all collection processes ... is of paramount importance and will affect all sewer districts’ ability to collect unpaid sewer bills.”

The case is one of eight granted transfer by the Indiana Supreme Court for the week ending Feb. 7. The others are:


Justices rejected transfer petitions in 27 cases. The transfer disposition list may be viewed here.




 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT