Supreme Court declines to set aside tax deed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has reversed a trial court’s decision to set aside a tax deed, finding the Marion County auditor’s office satisfied the due process requirement articulated by the United States Supreme Court.

Sawmill Creek LLC, a Wyoming entity, purchased four acres of unimproved land on Rockville Road in Marion County. The closing statement, general warranty deed and the title insurance policy named the purchaser as “Saw Creek Investments LLC.” Bill Simpson, the manager of Sawmill Creek, didn’t notice the error. When Simpson moved his office from a Dandy Trail address to a location in Brownsburg, he stopped receiving tax bills on the property and became delinquent. The auditor tried sending notices of the sale to the Dandy Trail address through first class mail, but they came back as undeliverable and unable to forward. The auditor even sent notices to the previous owner, which also came back undeliverable. A title search didn’t reveal the new address of Sawmill Creek because the title company was using the incorrect name.

The property was sold at tax sale to McCord Investments. It wasn’t until an acquaintance of Simpson saw “for sale” signs posted on the property did Simpson learn of the tax sale. He filed a motion to set aside, which the trial court granted.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, but a majority of justices reversed, finding the auditor’s office did what it could to attempt to notify Simpson and Sawmill Creek of the sale. The majority cited Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust, 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S. Ct. 652, 656–57, 94 L. Ed. 865, 873 (1950), Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 126 S. Ct. 1708, 164 L. Ed.2d 415 (2006), and Dusenberry v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 122 S. Ct. 694m 151 L.Ed.2d 597 (2002).

In Marion County Auditor, and McCord Investments, LLC v. Sawmill Creek, LLC a/k/a Saw Creek Investments, LLC, No. 49S02-1106-CV-364, the majority also rejected Sawmill’s argument that notice must be posted on the property when the owner of record can’t be located through any reasonable means.

Justice Robert Rucker dissented, writing he agreed with the decision by the Court of Appeals.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?