Evicted renter has no legal right to challenge quiet title complaint filed by new property owner, COA affirms

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00
IL file photo

A longtime tenant at an Indianapolis rental property had no right to take action against a new property owner’s quiet title default judgment, the Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled Thursday in affirming a trial court’s decision.

According to court records, in July 2021, JTJ Indiana LLC bought a residence at 5102 Hillside Ave. in Indianapolis from Janice Wright.

Wright executed a quitclaim deed, which was recorded in Marion County on Aug. 16.

On Nov. 4, JTJ filed a complaint to quiet title to the property “against ‘The World.’”

JTJ named as defendants Wright’s predecessors in title to the property as well as “unknown occupant,” “John Doe/Jane Doe,” and “The World[.]”

JTJ served the unnamed defendants notice of its complaint by publication pursuant to Indiana Code section 32-30-3-14(f) and Trial Rule 4.13.

Sickle has lived at the property continuously since March 1, 2004, when he first leased the property from Wright. In 2007, Wright “renewed” Sickle’s lease for “25 years[.]”

And, following a judgment for Sickle against Wright in November 2008, Wright agreed that Sickle could live at the property for as long as he wanted to. However, both Wright and Sickle acknowledged a “pending foreclosure” on the property and that Sickle might be evicted.

Sickle never recorded his leasehold interest in the property.

In April 2022, JTJ moved for default judgment on its complaint.

The Marion Circuit Court granted that motion on May 4.

On Sept. 16, JTJ served Sickle with an eviction notice.

As a result, Sickle hired an attorney. The attorney told Sickle about the quiet title action, and, on Nov. 12, Sickle filed a motion to set aside the default judgment.

In his motion, Sickle argued that the default judgment should be set aside pursuant to both Trial Rule 60(B)(1) and (8). In support, Sickle alleged excusable neglect in that he “had no actual knowledge” of the quiet title action until after the default judgment was entered.

Sickle alleged that equity required that the default judgment be set aside because he had not been personally served and because JTJ had “made no inquiry of Sickle’s interest” in the property.

He also alleged meritorious defenses.

The trial court denied Sickle’s motion following a hearing and denied Sickle’s subsequent motion to correct error.

Sickle appealed and argued that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to set aside the default judgment.

In particular, Sickle argued that the default judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient service of process.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Sickle’s motion to set aside the default judgment.

Judge Paul Mathias wrote the opinion for the appellate court.

Mathias noted Sickle’s argument that JTJ knew or “should have known of Sickle’s occupancy” of the property when it filed its complaint.

According to Mathias, the undisputed evidence established that Sickle’s lease for the property was not recorded and whether JTJ knew that Sickle lived at the property “is of no moment.”

“Under the statute, JTJ was not required to name Sickle as a defendant in the quiet title action, and Sickle cannot be heard to complain that he was not served with the complaint,” Mathias wrote.

Mathias wrote that Sickle’s motion to set aside the default judgment presumed that he had an interest in the quiet title action, but he is incorrect.

The trial court found JTJ owns the property and Sickle claims only a leasehold interest.

Citing Santa Claus, Inc. v. Santa Claus of Santa Claus, 217 Ind. 251, 255-56, 27 N.E.2d 354, 356 (1940), Mathias wrote that the Indiana Supreme Court has held that a tenant has no right to bring a quiet title action against an owner of real property.

“And Sickle has not demonstrated that his unrecorded leasehold interest is enough to challenge JTJ’s quiet title complaint,” Mathias wrote.

Judges Patricia Riley and Terry Crone concurred.

The case is Robert Sickle v. JTJ Indiana, LLC, 23A-PL-644.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}