Marion County Auditor v. Sawmill Creek, LLC
938 N.E.2d 778
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- Sawmill Creek, LLC owned the four-acre Lot at 8355 Rockville Road, Indianapolis; title error listed “Saw Creek Investments, LLC” instead of Sawmill Creek, LLC.
- Delinquent taxes on the Lot led to an October 2005 tax sale where McCord Investments, LLC bought the Lot for $20,000.
- Post-sale notice relied on certified mail to the Dandy Trail address (an empty hangar) and newspaper publication after unclaimed notices.
- Post-sale redemption period elapsed; Auditor filed petition for tax deed in December 2006 and issued the tax deed to McCord in January 2007.
- Sawmill Creek moved to set aside the tax deed in August 2007; after hearings, the trial court issued findings ordering the tax deed set aside in November 2009.
- This appeal centers on whether the Auditor’s notice attempts complied with constitutional due process as refined by Jones v. Flowers and Indiana’s post-Jones amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice attempts were constitutionally adequate post-Jones | Sawmill Creek argues more steps were required after certified mail failures. | Auditor/McCord contend prior notice sufficed under pre-Jones law. | No; Jones requires additional reasonable steps, which were not taken. |
| Whether posting or other steps beyond first-class mail were required | Auditor could have posted notice on the Lot or used occupant notices. | Resending by first-class mail is sufficient; posting is optional. | Resending by first-class mail was required; posting not deemed sufficient alone. |
| Whether Sawmill Creek had property interest and could receive notice | Sawmill Creek owned the Lot despite misnaming in the deed. | Deed misnaming does not negate ownership; Sawmill Creek identified as intended grantee. | The deed identified the intended grantee; ownership valid for notice purposes. |
| Effect of Wyoming dissolution on Sawmill Creek's capacity to sue | Administrative dissolution deprived Sawmill Creek of capacity to participate. | Dissolution did not bar filing of motion to set aside; winding up permitted. | Sawmill Creek could sue; dissolution did not preclude filing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties when mailed notices fail; posting may be required)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties; publication alone inadequate in many cases)
- Elizondo v. Read, 588 N.E.2d 501 (Ind. 1992) (pre-Jones rule; notice to last known address sufficient under prior rule)
- Infinity Prods., Inc. v. Quandt, 810 N.E.2d 1028 (Ind. 2004) (Indiana standard for due process in notices; reliance on published statements)