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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT