155 N.E.3d 1177
Ind.2020Background
- Lot 2 (≈29.8 acres) was held in Indiana Land Trust #4340; taxes were paid through 2008 but unpaid 2009–2015, accruing ~$230,000 in delinquent taxes.
- LaPorte County contracted SRI to mail tax-sale notices by certified and first-class mail to the tax-notice address on the deed (Midwest Investment, 415 N LaSalle Dr., Chicago). SRI sent both on July 31, 2015.
- The certified mailing was returned “not deliverable/unable to forward” (handwritten “REFUSED”); the contemporaneous first-class mailing was not returned. SRI performed a skip-trace that failed to locate a better address; the Auditor did not search internal records.
- Notice was published; the parcel went through the tax sale process, was sold to XL Investment, and a tax deed issued. Trust 4340 learned of the sale only after XL’s quiet-title filings; Trust 4340 moved to set aside the tax deed.
- Trial court denied the motion (finding statutory and constitutional notice adequate). Court of Appeals reversed (holding the Auditor had to search its records after certified mail was returned). Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice satisfied Fourteenth Amendment due process when certified mail was returned but first-class mail was not returned | Trust 4340: Government must take additional reasonable steps when certified mail is returned; here the Auditor failed to do so and notice was insufficient | Auditor/XL: Auditor complied with statute and due process by sending certified + first-class mail, publishing notice, and using SRI; no further steps were required here | Court: Notice was reasonably calculated to inform Trust 4340 under the circumstances; due process satisfied |
| Whether the Auditor was constitutionally required to search its internal records after the certified mailing was returned | Trust 4340: Auditor is charged with knowledge of its records and must search them to find a better address | Auditor/XL: Jones does not require an open-ended search of records; statute requires an additional step only if both mailings are returned or if practicable based on new information | Court: Declined to extend Elizondo; under these facts (first-class not returned, skip-trace, publication) Auditor was not required to search internal records |
| Whether the mailed notice’s content was sufficient despite lacking a street/common description | Trust 4340: Notice was deficient because it lacked a street address or common description | Auditor/XL: PIN, plat/lot description and acreage adequately identified the vacant parcel | Court: Notice substantially complied with statute; description was sufficient to apprise the owner |
Key Cases Cited
- Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (Due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of a pending tax sale)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (Due process requires notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (When mailed notice is returned, government must take additional reasonable steps if practicable)
- Marion Cnty. Auditor v. Sawmill Creek, LLC, 964 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 2012) (applying Jones; evaluate adequacy of notice based on case facts)
- M&M Inv. Group, LLC v. Ahlemeyer Farms, Inc., 994 N.E.2d 1108 (Ind. 2013) (distinguishing classes of interest; question internal-records search rule)
- Elizondo v. Read, 588 N.E.2d 501 (Ind. 1992) (earlier decision holding auditor should search internal records; court declined to apply that rule here)