Joshua Lindsey v. Adam Neher, 988 N.E.2d 1207

Five parcels in Cutler, Indiana, were sold at a tax sale for delinquent taxes while Lindsey had occupied the property for forty years without formal title transfer.
The Carroll County tax sale certificate was later assigned to Neher.
Notice publications erroneously stated the sale occurred on April 11, 2012 instead of April 9, 2012, and notices indicated a petition-for-tax-deed date around August 11, 2012.
A certified redemption notice was mailed to Carmack stating the sale date and the 120-day redemption deadline.
Lindsey attempted redemption in August 2012 but was told the redemption period had expired; Neher filed a petition for tax deed; the circuit court initially ordered a deed to Neher.
A series of orders and hearings culminated in a ruling that the tax deed was void and Lindsay could redeem; the trial court and appellate court reversed on that basis and remanded for redemption payment to be accepted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to substantially comply with tax sale statutes voids the tax deed	Lindsey argues misdated notices deprived due process and voided the deed	Neher argues notices were issued and substantive dates should govern	Yes; the tax deed is void and Lindsey may redeem

Kessen v. Graft, 694 N.E.2d 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (voids remedy when notices fail to meet statutory requirements and due process)
Smith v. Breeding, 586 N.E.2d 932 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (due process requires constitutionally adequate notice)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (Sup. Ct. 1950) (note on notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
Swami, Inc. v. Lee, 841 N.E.2d 1173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (substantial compliance with tax sale statutes required)
In re 2005 Tax Sale Parcel No. 24006-001-0022-01, 898 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (examples of strict compliance impact on validity)
Peterson v. Warner, 478 N.E.2d 692 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (notice deficiencies can render tax deeds invalid)