M & M Investment Group, LLC v. Ahlemeyer Farms, Inc. and Monroe Bank, 994 N.E.2d 1108

Indiana tax sale requires county auditor to mail pre-sale notice to mortgagees who annually request notice via a form and pay a fee.
M & M Investment Group purchased the property at a tax sale; Monroe Bank held two mortgages but did not file the notice form and thus did not receive pre-sale notice.
Bank challenged the notice statute as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment; trial court found §6-1.1-24-3(b) unconstitutional and denied the petition.
Jones v. Flowers (2006) prompted later legislative and doctrinal developments requiring additional steps when notice is returned unclaimed, influencing subsequent Indiana analysis.
Indiana amended §6-1.1-24-4 (2007) to add steps after unclaimed mailings, but the statute still conditions notice on the mortgagee’s affirmative request.
Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding §6-1.1-24-3(b) constitutional as applied to mortgagees that timely request notice, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is §6-1.1-24-3(b) constitutional as applied to mortgagees who must request notice?	M&M argues the form requirement comports with due process.	Monroe Bank contends Jones v. Flowers requires broader notice; Elizondo was abrogated.	Constitutional; form requirement valid
Did Jones abrogate Elizondo for mortgagees?	Elizondo remains controlling; notice balanced in Indiana.	Jones undermines Elizondo and requires additional steps for mortgagees.	Jones did not abrogate Elizondo for mortgagees
Does the savings clause affect constitutionality of the notice provision?	Savings clause could render statute unconstitutional if notice fails.	Savings clause is severable; constitutionality survives the rest of the statute.	Savings clause severable; statute constitutional
Would burdened search of recorder records be necessary to identify mortgagees?	A broader search would improve notice accuracy.	Open-ended cross-agency searches impose greater burdens with limited benefit.	Not required; form-based notice suffices

Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (U.S. 1983) (constructive notice insufficient when mortgagee is publicly recorded)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform)
Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (unclaimed notice requires additional reasonable steps)
Elizondo v. Read, 588 N.E.2d 501 (Ind. 1992) (Indiana balanced state interests with purchaser and mortgagee notice)
Griffin v. Munco Assoc., 589 N.E.2d 220 (Ind. 1992) (recording and notice procedures to reduce errors)
Miller Reeder Co. v. Farmers State Bank of Wyatt, 588 N.E.2d 506 (Ind. 1992) (notice scheme balancing interests)
Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1972) (due process considerations when address is known to be inaccurate)
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Barabas, 975 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. 2012) (mortgage environment complexities and MERS implications)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (procedural due process balancing test)