Tax sale petitions OK because of lack of notice

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a woman in two separate cases involving the purchase of her property at tax sales in Franklin County after determining she received insufficient notice of the sales.

In both of the cases - Kimberly Neace v. Vinod C. Gupta, No. 24A01-0806-CV-255, and Kenneth Edwards v. Kimberly Neace, No. 24A04-0807-CV-401 - Neace had appealed the sale of parcels of property to Vinod Gupta and Kenneth Edwards. The Franklin County Auditor's office had an incorrect address listed for Neace, causing the pre-sale and post-sale notices of the tax sales and the petition for a tax deed to be returned as unclaimed or undeliverable.

The tax sale occurred in September 2005, and the tax deeds were ordered in January 2007 in both sales. Neace didn't learn of the sales until April 2007 and petitioned the court to set aside the sales, alleging she didn't receive notice.

In Neace v. Gupta, the trial court granted Gupta's motion to dismiss her petition. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that although there is a 60-day statutory limit to appeal the order to issue a tax deed, an exception may be made when the petition for relief from judgment alleges the tax deed is void due to inadequate notice, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik, who authored both opinions. The exception allows for an appeal to be brought under insufficient notice within a reasonable time frame. The appellate court had previously found a delay of more than four months to be reasonable in the case Diversified Investments v. U.S. Bank, NA, 838, N.E.2d 536, 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). The Court of Appeals remanded for the trial court to hold the evidentiary hearing provided for by Ind. Trial Rule 60(D).

In Edwards v. Neace, Edwards appealed the trial court denial of his motion to correct errors after the court set aside the tax deed issued to him. Edwards argued the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Neace's petition since she filed it after the 60-day time limit. However, because Neace alleges insufficient notice of the sale and order to issue the tax deed, the trial court did have subject matter jurisdiction over her petition, wrote Judge Vaidik.

When notices are returned as undeliverable, further, practical action must be taken to attempt to notify an interested party of tax sale proceedings, she wrote.

The county auditor should have been aware there was a discrepancy in Neace's record since the "property address" was listed in Ohio and not in Indiana. Neither Edwards nor the auditor sent notice to her address of record instead of the property address, making the notices constitutionally insufficient, she wrote.


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?