Anthony J. Iemma v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Successor by Merger with Bank One, N.A.
992 N.E.2d 732
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- LRB appeals orders setting aside tax deeds for two lots at 1034 East Jackson Boulevard, Elkhart, Indiana, and denying its correction motion.
- Chase Bank, as mortgagee-by-merger, challenged the tax deeds in Cause No. 41; Chase had a lien in Cause No. 188 for foreclosure on the same two lots.
- Tax certificates were purchased by LRB in 2009 after unpaid taxes; notices were sent to the Iemmas and Bank One-Merrillville, but not to Bank One-Indianapolis.
- Chase Bank received notices through counsel involved in the related foreclosure action; notices to Bank One-Merrillville were later deemed undeliverable.
- The Elkhart Circuit Court found LRB failed to meet statutory notice and description requirements, and set aside the tax deeds; separate partial summary judgment favored Chase in the foreclosure case.
- On review, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding LRB complied with due process and substantially with notice and description requirements, vacating the foreclosure decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tax deeds should be set aside for failure to comply with notice statutes | LRB contends Chase Bank, as successor, is entitled to notice; mailed notices to Bank One-Merrillville sufficed. | Chase Bank asserts notices were inadequate for Bank One-Indianapolis and improper under sections 4.5/4.6. | Tax deeds not set aside; notice substantially complied. |
| Whether notice complied with due process for a non-governmental purchaser | LRB mailed notices to a recorded mortgagee and to Chase Bank via its foreclosure counsel; due process satisfied. | Citimortgage authority shows notice to bankruptcy counsel is insufficient; otherwise, due process not met. | Due process satisfied; notices reasonably calculated to inform Chase Bank. |
| Whether the property description in notices met statutory accuracy requirements | Descriptions used matched the tax deeds and mortgage descriptions; small street naming error did not defeat notice. | Trial court found descriptions not in substantial compliance with 4.5; notices used same legal descriptions as mortgage. | Not in substantial noncompliance; descriptions substantially comply. |
| Effect of 41 tax-sale issues on 188 foreclosure decree | Resolution of 41 controls; if 41 favors LRB, 188 decree should be vacated. | Foreclosure judgment stands independently; issues do not impact 188 decree. | Remand to vacate 188 foreclosure decree in light of 41 ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tax Certificate Investments, Inc. v. Smethers, 714 N.E.2d 131 (Ind. 1999) (tax sale notices must substantially comply with statutes)
- Sawmill Creek, LLC v. Marion County Auditor, 964 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 2012) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Nieto v. Kezy, 846 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (statutory notice required in tax sales)
- Porter v. Bankers Trust Co. of California, N.A., 773 N.E.2d 901 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (strict compliance in tax sale notice requirements)
- Combs v. Tolle, 816 N.E.2d 432 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (due process concerns in tax notice)
- Citimortgage, Inc. v. Barabas, 975 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. 2012) (due process notice via counsel considerations)
- CFS, LLC v. Bank of America, 962 N.E.2d 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (bank mergers and successor rights in notice context)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (S. Ct. 1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform)