Booker T. Prince, Jr. v. Marion County Auditor and Marion County Treasurer
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 323
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Prince owned two adjoining parcels in Indianapolis, one with an apartment building and one a parking lot.
- Prince failed to pay property taxes, triggering a tax sale process by the Marion County Auditor and Treasurer.
- The Auditor sent notices of sale to Prince at multiple addresses, including a California PO box and the building, with several notices returned as vacant.
- An application for judgment and order for sale was filed September 15, 2010; the court issued judgment on October 4, 2010 and the parcels were sold October 8, 2010.
- Prince later learned of the sale; notices after sale were sent to various addresses, including the California box, some not returned.
- Prince moved for relief from judgment under Trial Rule 60(B)(6); the trial court denied relief after finding substantial compliance with notices and procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the application for judgment and order for sale substantially complied with statutory requirements | Prince contends the application lacked mailing and publication dates. | Officials argue substantial compliance despite missing dates. | Substantial compliance; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the notices given to Prince satisfied due process | Due process required more exacting notice of sale and redemption rights. | Notices sent via multiple methods were reasonably calculated to inform Prince. | Notices satisfied due process; court did not err. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stonger v. Sorrell, 776 N.E.2d 353 (Ind. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 60(B) appeals; two-tier review when there are findings)
- Sawmill Creek, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Auditor, 964 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 2012) (due process notice sufficiency and multiple notice methods support validity)
- Schaefer v. Kumar, 804 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (tax sale notice requirements; substantial compliance standard)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (due process notice requirements; actual notice not always required)
- Marra v. Clapp, 255 Ind. 97 (Ind. 1970) (strict compliance doctrine; election context (distinguishable from tax sale))