992 N.E.2d 751
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Farmers Mutual transferred title to a Grant County farmland in 1988 using a deed that misspelled the owner’s name as Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Grant and Blackford Counties, Inc.
- Auditor records entered the owner’s name with abbreviations, listing the owner as Farmers Mutual Ins Co of Grant & Blackford Counties Inc and address PO Box 1388, Marion, IN 46952.
- In 2004, Farmers Mutual bought the Office Property; the deed identified the owner correctly, but the auditor recorded it as Farmers Mutual Insurance Co with the Office Property’s address.
- In June 2008 the Farm Property’s mailing PO box was closed; Farmers Mutual did not provide a new address to the auditor/tax authorities and tax statements were mailed to the old PO box.
- Tax delinquency led the auditor to list the Farm Property for sale at tax sale on September 23, 2010; SRI, Inc. sent notices to the old PO box by certified mail and then first-class mail, both returned as undeliverable.
- The tax sale occurred and Jewell purchased the Property; a tax deed was issued to Jewell in 2011; Farmers Mutual petitioned to set aside the deed in 2012, which was denied by the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does failure to comply with notice requirements void the tax deed? | Farmers Mutual argues noncompliance nullifies the deed under I.C. 6-1.1-25-16. | Jewell and the state rely on substantial compliance and due-process standards; noncompliance can be cured with a proper search and notice steps. | Yes, the deed is void; the auditor’s failure to search records and notify properly violated statutory due process, requiring setting aside. |
| Is a landowner's failure to update address a complete defense to relief under 60(B)? | Farmers Mutual’s failure to keep an updated address should bar relief (unclean hands). | TR 60(B) relief is statutory relief for voidness under 6-1.1-25-16 and not barred by unclean hands when statute requires notice. | Unclean hands do not bar relief where the tax deed is void for lack of substantial compliance with notice statutes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindsey v. Neher, 988 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (TR 60(B) relief when deed void under notice statute)
- Kessen v. Graft, 694 N.E.2d 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (notice procedures; substantial compliance standard)
- Swami, Inc. v. Lee, 841 N.E.2d 1173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (pre-amendment notice; unclean hands reasoning)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (due process requires reasonable notice steps after unclaimed mail)
- In re 2007 Tax Sale in Lake Cnty., 926 N.E.2d 524 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (statutory notice framework and presumption of validity)
- Marion Cnty. Auditor v. Sawmill Creek, LLC, 964 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 2012) (two-tier review of findings; due process in tax sales)
- Tax Certificate Invs., Inc. v. Smethers, 714 N.E.2d 131 (Ind. 1999) (pre-amendment notice standards in tax sales)
- Elizondo v. Read, 588 N.E.2d 501 (Ind. 1992) (notice requirements and due process considerations)
- Combs v. Tolle, 816 N.E.2d 432 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (due process and notice implications in tax sales)