109 N.E.3d 1021
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- In October 2015 Madison County held a Treasurer’s Tax Sale; the subject parcel (104 Morton St.) received no minimum bid and the county acquired the lien. The Board then offered the county’s interest at a Commissioners’ Certificate Sale in April 2016; Picket Fence (later succeeded by Andrew Patrick) purchased the certificate and later petitioned for a tax deed.
- The trial court’s September 2016 order granted the tax deed but included language waiving certain taxes (notably Spring/Fall 2015 payable 2016 and Spring 2016 payable 2017).
- Madison County intervened, arguing the September order erred by extinguishing taxes that accrued after the October 2015 Treasurer’s Tax Sale and by ordering waiver of taxes not yet payable; the court issued March 31 and May 23, 2017 orders clarifying tax removal under Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4(j).
- Madison County’s interpretation: the statutory “sale” means the Treasurer’s Tax Sale (October 2015); certificate purchasers owe taxes that accrue after that tax sale (including taxes that became due between Oct 2015 and Apr 2016). County witnesses (auditor and tax-sale consultant) testified the auditor complied with the court’s orders.
- Patrick filed a Motion to Compel removal of additional taxes from the tax duplicate; the trial court denied it (Oct 9, 2017). Patrick appealed pro se. The Court of Appeals affirmed and declined to award appellate fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “sale” in Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4(f) (which liens survive) | “Sale” refers to the later Commissioners’ Certificate Sale, so purchaser owes only taxes accruing after April 2016. | “Sale” refers to the Treasurer’s Tax Sale (Oct 2015); certificate purchaser must pay taxes that accrue after that tax sale, including those that arose between Oct 2015 and Apr 2016. | Court interprets “sale” as the Treasurer’s Tax Sale; affirmed that purchaser is responsible for taxes accruing in the year of the tax sale (2015), reduced only by the statutory mathematical formula under § 6-1.1-25-4(j). |
| Award of appellate attorney’s fees for frivolous appeal | (implicit) appeal lacks merit so fees should be denied? (Patrick did not specifically argue for fees) | Madison County: Patrick’s brief is procedurally and substantively deficient; request fees under Appellate Rule 66(E). | Court declines to award fees: procedural defects not egregious enough and appellant’s statutory argument was not utterly devoid of plausibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (pro se litigants held to same legal standards as attorneys)
- Hall v. Terry, 837 N.E.2d 1095 (Ind. 2005) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- In re 2002 Lake Cnty. Tax Sale, 818 N.E.2d 505 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (tax-sale related statutory interpretation precedent)
- Jenner v. Bloomington Cellular Servs., Inc., 77 N.E.3d 1232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (start statutory interpretation with plain meaning of text)
- Manous v. Manousogianakis, 824 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (standard for awarding appellate fees under Appellate Rule 66(E))
- Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (discussing bad-faith/frivolous-appeal sanctions)