Lamasco Redevelopment, LLC v. Henry County, Indiana, Auditor and Henry County, Indiana, Treasurer
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 308
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Two Henry County parcels (Certificates 413 and 91) were sold at a September 24, 2015 tax sale for delinquent taxes; Lamasco Redevelopment, LLC was the winning bidder and obtained tax sale certificates.
- Lamasco provided statutorily required notices; owners (Tax Ease Florida REO, LLC and Unique Real Estate Solutions, Inc.) did not redeem or appear.
- Lamasco petitioned for tax deeds; the trial court granted petitions and ordered deeds issued in December 2016.
- After the sale, owners executed deeds conveying their interests to third parties: Unique recorded a warranty deed to Kolodziej within the redemption period; Tax Ease recorded a quitclaim to Ovation REO after the redemption period.
- Auditor later discovered it had endorsed those conveyances despite a new statute (Ind. Code § 32-21-8-7, effective July 1, 2016) limiting endorsements and moved to invalidate the tax sales and vacate the tax-deed orders; the trial court granted the motion without a hearing.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the auditor’s endorsement error did not require invalidation of the otherwise lawful tax sales or vacatur of the tax-deed orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Auditor/Treasurer) | Defendant's Argument (Lamasco) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether auditor's violation of Ind. Code § 32-21-8-7 required invalidation of the tax sales and vacatur of tax-deed orders | Auditor/Treasurer: statute bars auditor endorsements of post-sale transfers unless transferee redeems; their inadvertent endorsement compromised legal integrity and prejudiced transferees, so court should invalidate sales | Lamasco: tax sales complied with statutory sale and notice rules; it fulfilled purchaser duties; auditor's endorsement error does not undo an otherwise valid tax sale | Court: Reversed trial court — auditor’s failure to follow § 32-21-8-7 did not provide basis to invalidate the valid tax sales or vacate tax-deed orders; deeds should be issued to Lamasco. |
| Effect of § 32-21-8-7(b) on a conveyance recorded after redemption period | Auditor/Treasurer: statute protects competing claimants and record integrity; post-redemption recordings are implicated | Lamasco: statute voids untimely recorded conveyances but does not empower courts to overturn compliant tax sales | Court: § 32-21-8-7(b) renders the quitclaim recorded after redemption (Tax Ease -> Ovation) void, but that void conveyance does not support invalidating the tax sale. |
| Whether equitable relief was available to protect third-party purchasers (Ovation, Kolodziej) | Auditor/Treasurer: equity should prevent injustice to transferees who relied on auditor endorsement | Lamasco: transferees did not appear or redeem; buyer-beware applies; no defect in tax-sale process justified equitable relief | Court: Equitable cases cited are distinguishable (there, owners lacked proper notice). Here, no tax-sale process error; equity did not warrant invalidation. |
| Whether Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-11 authorizes courts to invalidate sales | Auditor/Treasurer: statute authorizes court to invalidate sales and requires refund if sale invalid | Lamasco: § 6-1.1-25-11 provides remedies after a court invalidates a sale but does not itself supply a basis to invalidate a sale | Court: Agreed with Lamasco — § 6-1.1-25-11 prescribes remedies if a sale is found invalid but does not create independent grounds for invalidation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Purdue Farms v. Pryor, 683 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. 1997) (general-judgment review principle)
- ESPN, Inc. v. Univ. of Notre Dame Police Dep’t, 62 N.E.3d 1192 (Ind. 2016) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Marion Cty. Auditor v. Sawmill Creek, LLC, 964 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 2012) (overview of tax-sale process for delinquent taxes)
- Lindsey v. Neher, 988 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (due process/notice requirements before depriving property)
- In re 2002 Lake Cty. Tax Sale, 818 N.E.2d 505 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (statutory interpretation rules)
- Porter Dev., LLC v. First Nat’l Bank of Valparaiso, 866 N.E.2d 775 (Ind. 2007) (plain-meaning rule of statutory construction)
- In re 2002 Floyd Cty. Tax Sale, 813 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (reading related statutes harmoniously)
- In re 2014 Johnson Cty. Tax Sale, 48 N.E.3d 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (equitable relief for defective notice in tax-sale context)
- M Jewell, LLC v. Powell, 954 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (equitable relief where notice defects risked loss of property)
- Tajuddin v. Sandhu Petroleum Corp. No. 3, 921 N.E.2d 891 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (equitable intervention where owners lacked notice)