Marion County Auditor v. Sawmill Creek, LLC
2012 Ind. LEXIS 45
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Tax deed issued to McCord Investments after a 2005 Marion County tax sale of unmarginal four-acre Rockville Rd property.
- Property owner of record was Sawmill Creek, LLC, but name misnomer appeared as Saw Creek Investments, LLC; documents referenced Saw Creek.
- Notice was mailed to the Dandy Trail address (Sawmill's address) and returned as not deliverable; publication and website notices followed.
- Auditor conducted title search via Valley Title; could not locate Saw Creek or Sawmill; Cloverleaf Properties appeared as another potential owner of record.
- Auditor mailed post-sale notices to Cloverleaf and continued notices to Sawmill; after redemption period, tax deed issued to McCord.
- Sawmill moved to set aside the deed, arguing due-process failures under Flowers/Mullane; trial court set aside deed, Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, and Supreme Court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did notice satisfy due process under Mullane/Flowers? | Sawmill: notice incomplete; unclaimed/unforwardable mail plus limited searches insufficient. | Auditor: multiple notices plus supplemental steps adequate under circumstances. | Yes; notices reasonably calculated under all circumstances. |
| Was posting on the property required given unimproved land and misnomer? | Posting on property was the only reasonable means after untraceable address. | Posting not required given impracticality and alternative steps. | Not required; posting deemed impracticable under Flowers/Mullane. |
| Were additional steps (title search, notices to Cloverleaf) reasonable to locate Sawmill? | Steps irrelevant if owner cannot be located; only proper owner should be notified. | Search and notices to Cloverleaf supplemented process and were reasonably calculated to inform Sawmill. | Yes; actions were reasonably calculated to provide notice. |
| Does Flowers limit or modify Mullane due process standard in tax sales? | Flowers requires more proactive steps when initial notice is returned. | Flowers informs framework but case-specific fact-intensive inquiry governs. | Standard remains Mullane-with-Flowers framework; case facts support sufficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process notice must be reasonably calculated to inform.)
- Flowers v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (unclaimed notice requires additional reasonable steps if practicable.)
- Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002) (reinforces Mullane framework for notice adequacy.)
- Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112 (1956) (context for balancing state interest and individual notice.)
- Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444 (1982) (posting notice depends on property type and practicality.)