14 N.E.3d 883
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Floor‑Essence, LLC owned three adjacent Marion County parcels (4503 Rockville Rd; 4501 Rockville Rd; 14 S. Vine St.) and failed to pay property taxes.
- The Marion County Auditor sent statutorily required pre‑sale notices by certified mail (returned unclaimed) and duplicate notices by first‑class mail (not returned); parcels were sold at tax sale on Sept. 23, 2011.
- Post‑sale and petition‑for‑tax‑deed notices were mailed to Floor‑Essence’s business address, to its attorney, and to occupants of the properties; none of the first‑class mailings were returned.
- Floor‑Essence (through its principal Thomason) claimed she never received the notices, pointed to open/unlocked mailboxes, proximity of her residence, and alleged the Auditor could have taken additional steps to provide notice.
- The trial court held evidentiary hearings, found the Auditor sent the required notices and that first‑class mailings were not returned, concluded the Auditor substantially complied with the statutes and due process, and ordered tax sale deeds to issue.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s October 15, 2013 judgment overruling Floor‑Essence’s objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in overruling Floor‑Essence’s objection and ordering issuance of tax sale deeds (i.e., whether notice satisfied statutory and due process requirements) | Notices were not reasonably calculated to provide actual notice: certified mail was unclaimed, mailboxes were accessible to the public, owner experienced mail problems, Auditor could have checked attorney address, posted notices, or attempted personal service | Auditor complied with statutory notice procedures: certified and duplicate first‑class mailings were sent to all known addresses, first‑class mail was not returned, Auditor obtained a title search and was not required to perform an open‑ended address search or post notices | Affirmed: Auditor substantially complied with statutory notice requirements; the method of service was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to satisfy due process and support issuance of tax deeds |
Key Cases Cited
- Marion Cnty. Auditor v. Sawmill Creek, 964 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 2012) (explains standard for substantial compliance with tax‑sale notice statutes and due process sufficiency)
- Prince v. Marion Cnty. Auditor, 992 N.E.2d 214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (confirms actual notice not required; notice must be reasonably calculated under the circumstances)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (federal due process standard: notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)