Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1702-MI-398 | July 25, 2017 Page 1 of 13

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Adam D. Decker

Crown Point, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES

J. Alex Bruggenschmidt

Buchanan & Bruggenschmidt, P.C.

Zionsville, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Lamasco Redevelopment, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

Henry County, Indiana, Auditor 

and Henry County, Indiana, 

Treasurer.

Appellees.

July 25, 2017 

Court of Appeals Case No.

33A01-1702-MI-398

Appeal from the Henry Circuit 

Court.

The Honorable Bob A. Witham, 

Judge.

Trial Court Cause No. 

33C01-1509-MI-116 

Sharpnack, Senior Judge

Statement of the Case

[1] Lamasco Redevelopment, LLC, appeals the trial court’s order granting the 

Henry County Auditor and Henry County Treasurer’s request to invalidate

Lamasco’s purchase of two properties at a 2015 tax sale and to vacate the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1702-MI-398 | July 25, 2017 Page 2 of 13

court’s orders directing that tax deeds be issued to Lamasco for those 

properties. We reverse and remand.

Issue

[2] Lamasco raises two issues, which we consolidate and restate as: whether the 

court erred in invalidating the tax sale and vacating its orders directing the 

issuance of tax deeds.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] This case concerns two parcels of land in Henry County. The first, identified as 

Tax Sale Certificate Number 331500413 (“413”), was owned by Tax Ease 

Florida REO, LLC, a Texas company. The second, identified as Tax Sale 

Certificate Number 331500091 (“91”), was owned by Unique Real Estate 

Solutions, Inc., an Indiana company.

[4] Tax Ease and Unique Real Estate were delinquent in paying property taxes for 

their parcels. On September 4, 2015, the Auditor and the Treasurer began this 

case by petitioning the trial court for permission to sell the parcels, along with

others, at a tax sale. The trial court granted the petition on September 18, 2015.

[5] The tax sale was held on September 24, 2015, and Lamasco was the successful 

bidder for parcels 413 and 91. The Auditor issued tax sale certificates to 

Lamasco for the parcels. The certificates stated Lamasco would be entitled to 

tax deeds for the parcels unless the owners paid the property taxes on or before 

September 26, 2016. Next, on November 3, 2015, Lamasco sent notices to Tax 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1702-MI-398 | July 25, 2017 Page 3 of 13

Ease and Unique Real Estate explaining their properties had been sold at a tax 

sale and advising them of the September 26, 2016 redemption deadline. 

Neither landowner appeared in the tax sale case or paid the back taxes.

[6] On October 4, 2016, Lamasco sent Tax Ease and Unique Real Estate notices 

stating the redemption period had expired and Lamasco would petition the trial 

court to issue tax deeds. On November 15, 2016, Lamasco filed with the trial 

court petitions for the issuance of tax deeds for parcels 413 and 91, claiming it 

had complied with all statutory obligations and the owners had not redeemed 

the parcels. On December 7, 2016, the court granted both petitions and 

directed the Auditor to issue tax deeds to Lamasco for parcels 413 and 91.

[7] The Auditor subsequently discovered it had endorsed deeds purporting to 

transfer Tax Ease and Unique Real Estate’s interests in their parcels to other 

persons. On September 15, 2016, Unique Real Estate executed a warranty deed 

for parcel 91 to Justin D. Kolodziej for ten dollars. The deed was recorded in 

Henry County on September 20, 2016, within the redemption period. On 

December 5, 2016, Tax Ease executed a quitclaim deed to Ovation REO 1, 

LLC, for parcel 413 for $4,182.39. The deed was recorded in Henry County on 

December 27, 2016, after the redemption period had expired. No one paid the 

back taxes for the parcels.

[8] On January 20, 2017, the Auditor and the Treasurer filed a motion to invalidate 

the tax sale as to parcels 413 and 91 and to vacate the orders for tax deeds to be 

issued to Lamasco. They served the motion on Ovation REO and Kolodziej, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1702-MI-398 | July 25, 2017 Page 4 of 13

along with Lamasco. In the motion, the Auditor and the Treasurer claimed 

that Indiana Code section 32-21-8-7 (2016), which took effect on July 1, 2016,

bars auditors from endorsing the conveyance of properties that are subject to tax 

liens unless the property has been redeemed. The Auditor and the Treasurer 

further stated the Auditor was unaware of the statute and inadvertently violated 

it by endorsing Unique Real Estate’s warranty deed and Tax Ease’s quitclaim 

deed even though the purchasers had not paid the delinquent property taxes. 

They concluded the breach of Indiana Code section 32-21-8-7 “compromised 

the legal integrity of the tax sale” and that Kolodziej and Ovation REO’s 

property rights were “materially undermined.” Appellant’s App. p. 50.

[9] The trial court granted the motion without a hearing. The court invalidated the 

tax sale as to parcels 413 and 91, vacated the orders directing the Auditor to

issue tax deeds, ordered the Auditor to refund to Lamasco all monies due by 

statute, and directed Lamasco to restore the ownership interests of the prior 

owners of record. Neither Ovation REO nor Kolodziej appeared in the case. 

Lamasco filed a motion to correct error, to which the Auditor and Treasurer 

objected. The court denied Lamasco’s motion, and this appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Lamasco argues the trial court erred in invalidating the tax sales and vacating 

its prior orders to issue tax deeds for parcels 413 and 91 because the sales fully 

complied with governing statutes and Lamasco had fulfilled its responsibilities 

as a tax sale purchaser. The Auditor and the Treasurer state the trial court 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1702-MI-398 | July 25, 2017 Page 5 of 13

acted appropriately because the Auditor’s violation of Indiana Code section 32-

21-8-7 compromised the “legal integrity of the tax sale.” Appellees’ Br. p. 8.

[11] The trial court’s order did not contain any findings of fact or conclusions 

thereon. We thus review the order as a general judgment and, without 

reweighing evidence or considering witness credibility, we will affirm if 

sustainable on any theory consistent with the evidence. Purdue Farms v. Pryor, 

683 N.E.2d 239, 240 (Ind. 1997). The application of a statute is a question of 

law and is subject to de novo review. ESPN, Inc. v. Univ. of Notre Dame Police 

Dep’t, 62 N.E.3d 1192, 1195 (Ind. 2016).

[12] When an owner of real estate fails to pay property taxes, the property may be 

subject to sale by county authorities in settlement of the delinquent taxes. 

Marion Cty. Auditor v. Sawmill Creek, LLC, 964 N.E.2d 213, 217 (Ind. 2012); see 

also Ind. Code §§ 6-1.1-22-10 (1993) (authorizing county officials to file suit for 

delinquent property taxes), 6-1.1-24-4.7 (2015) (outlining procedure for court 

approval of tax sale). Before a landowner is deprived of his or her property 

interest through a tax sale, notice must be given in a manner that satisfies due 

process requirements of the United States Constitution. Lindsey v. Neher, 988 

N.E.2d 1207, 1209 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

[13] There is no dispute that, at the time the Auditor and Treasurer sought 

permission to sell parcels 413 and 91 at a tax sale, the parcels’ owners were 

delinquent on their property taxes. There is also no dispute that the tax sale
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1702-MI-398 | July 25, 2017 Page 6 of 13

held on September 24, 2015, complied with governing statutes and that 

Lamasco fulfilled all responsibilities as the tax sale purchaser of the parcels, 

especially with regard to providing the proper notices to Tax Ease and Unique 

Real Estate. Further, Tax Ease and Unique Real Estate did not respond to the 

Auditor’s notice of tax sale or Lamasco’s notices, and they did not pay the 

delinquent taxes or appear in the case below. The key issue for us to resolve is 

whether the trial court was required to invalidate the tax sale and vacate its 

orders to the Auditor to issue tax deeds to Lamasco because of the Auditor’s 

unintentional violation of Indiana Code section 32-21-8-7 by endorsing post-tax 

sale deeds to purchasers who had failed to pay back taxes.

[14] Before addressing the statute, we note our rules of statutory interpretation. If 

the language of the statute is unambiguous, it is not subject to judicial 

interpretation. In re 2002 Lake Cty. Tax Sale, 818 N.E.2d 505, 507 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2004). Where the statute is unambiguous, the Court will read each word and 

phrase in its plain, ordinary and usual sense, without having to resort to rules of 

construction to decipher meanings. Porter Dev., LLC v. First Nat’l Bank of 

Valparaiso, 866 N.E.2d 775, 778 (Ind. 2007). Statutes relating to the same 

general subject matter should be read together to produce a harmonious 

statutory scheme. In re 2002 Floyd Cty. Tax Sale, 813 N.E.2d 805, 807 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2004).

[15] The statute at issue, Indiana Code section 32-21-8-7, took effect on July 1, 2016, 

during the redemption period for parcels 413 and 91. That statute provides:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1702-MI-398 | July 25, 2017 Page 7 of 13

(a) Before a county auditor may make the endorsement required 

by IC 36-2-11-14 on a document of conveyance for property to 

which this chapter applies, the person acquiring the property 

must:

(1) redeem the property by paying to the county treasurer the 

total amount required under IC 6-1.1-25; and

(2) provide to the county auditor proof from the county treasurer 

that the person made the payment specified under subdivision 

(1).

(b) A conveyance of property to which this chapter applies is 

inoperable and void if the conveyance document is not recorded 

with the county recorder of the county where the property is 

located on or before the expiration of the redemption period 

specified under IC 6-1.1-25 for the property.

Id.1 This statute “applies to a transfer of property made after June 30, 2001, 

that transfers ownership of the property from a delinquent taxpayer to another 

person after the property is sold at a tax sale under IC 6-1.1-24 and before the 

tax sale purchaser is issued a tax sale deed under IC 6-1.1-25-4.” Ind. Code §

32-21-8-1 (2002).

[16] Lamasco argues Indiana Code section 32-21-8-7:

was enacted to prevent unscrupulous persons and companies 

from purchasing properties from owners whose properties were 

sold at tax sale for an amount in excess of the minimum bid, and 

then making claims for the surplus (i.e. the amount of bid that 

exceeds the minimum bid) that would otherwise be payable to 

the original owner.

 

1

In addition, a county recorder may not record a conveyance of land unless the conveyance has been 

endorsed by the county auditor. Ind. Code § 36-2-11-14 (2007).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1702-MI-398 | July 25, 2017 Page 8 of 13

Appellant’s Br. p. 12. By contrast, the Auditor and the Treasurer claim Indiana 

Code section 32-21-8-7:

is deliberately designed to both resolve competing claims to 

ownership of real property in the county’s records after a tax sale 

and inform people prejudiced by a tax sale who are not otherwise 

entitled to notice by virtue of the nature and structure of 

Indiana’s tax sale system.

Appellees’ Br. p. 10.

[17] The purpose of Indiana Code section 32-21-8-7 is plain from its text in the 

context of Indiana Code section 32-21-8-1. It is intended to prevent the transfer 

of property that has been sold at a tax sale from the delinquent tax payer to a 

transferee prior to the expiration of the redemption period unless the transferee 

redeems the property and provides proof to the auditor from the treasurer that 

the amount required has been paid. It also renders void any transfer of any 

property that has been sold at a tax sale from the delinquent tax payer to a 

transferee prior to the issue of a tax sale deed if the conveyance document is not 

recorded on or before the expiration date of the redemption period.

[18] Put simply, unless the property of the delinquent taxpayer is redeemed during 

the redemption period, the tax sale process continues to its conclusion with the 

issuance by the auditor of a deed to the tax sale purchaser.

[19] Unfortunately, the transfer of property Indiana Code section 32-21-8-7 was 

intended to prevent occurred here despite the statute. Turning to Tax Ease’s 

transfer of parcel 413 to Ovation REO 1, LLC, by quitclaim deed, there is no 

dispute the conveyance was recorded after the redemption period had expired. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1702-MI-398 | July 25, 2017 Page 9 of 13

According to the plain language of Indiana Code section 32-21-8-7(b), the 

conveyance is void. The invalid conveyance of parcel 413 to Ovation REO 

cannot support the trial court’s decision to invalidate Lamasco’s tax sale 

purchase of parcel 413 and vacate the order to issue a tax deed to Lamasco, 

regardless of the Auditor’s unintentional violation of the statute.

[20] As for parcel 91, Unique Real Estate executed its warranty deed to Kolodziej, 

and Kolodziej recorded it within the redemption period, but neither Unique 

Real Estate nor Kolodziej had redeemed the parcel. Unique Real Estate did not 

appear in the tax sale case to defend its interest in the parcel. Furthermore, 

after the Auditor and the Treasurer filed their motion to invalidate sales and 

vacate orders for tax deed, Kolodziej did not appear in the case. Thus, 

although the Auditor erred in endorsing the warranty deed, the unauthorized

endorsement did not affect the tax lien process in any way. In addition, the 

plain language of Indiana Code section 32-21-8-7 provides no basis to conclude

that an auditor’s failure to comply with the statute should stop an otherwise 

lawful tax sale process. If the General Assembly intended for an auditor’s 

violation of the statute to stop the tax sale process, it would have drafted the 

statute accordingly.

[21] The Auditor and the Treasurer argue that a different statute, Indiana Code 

section 6-1.1-25-11 (2015), authorized the court to invalidate the tax sales of the 

parcels and authorized a generous remedy for Lamasco in the form of a refund

with interest. That statute provides:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1702-MI-398 | July 25, 2017 Page 10 of 13

(a) Subsequent to the issuance of the order directing the county 

auditor to issue a tax deed to real property sold under IC 6-1.1-

24, a county auditor shall refund:

(1) the purchase money and all taxes and special assessments on 

the property paid by the purchaser, the purchaser’s assigns, or the 

purchaser of the certificate of sale under IC 6-1.1-24 after the tax 

sale plus five percent (5%) interest per annum; and

(2) the costs described in section 2(e) of this chapter, if the costs 

were certified before the expiration of the period of redemption, 

subject to section 2.5 of this chapter;

from the county treasury to the purchaser, the purchaser’s 

successors or assigns, or the purchaser of the certificate of sale 

under IC 6-1.1-24 if it is found by the court that entered the order 

for the tax deed that the sale was invalid.

(b) The grantee of an invalid tax deed, including the county, to 

whom a refund is made under this section shall execute, 

acknowledge, and deliver to the owner a deed conveying 

whatever interest the purchaser may have acquired by the tax sale 

deed. If a county is required to execute a deed under this section, 

the deed shall be signed by the county board of commissioners 

and acknowledged by the clerk of the circuit court.

(c) A refund may not be made under this section while an action 

initiated under either section 14 or 16 of this chapter is pending.

(d) If a sale is declared invalid after a claim is submitted under IC 

6-1.1-24-7 for money deposited in the tax sale surplus fund and 

the claim is paid, the county auditor shall initiate an action to 

recover the amount claimed, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and 

any other costs reasonably incurred by the county in the course 

of, and attributable to, the recovery of the amount claimed.

Id. 

[22] We disagree with the Auditor and the Treasurer’s reading of the statute. The 

plain language of Indiana Code section 6-1.1-25-11 sets forth the remedies 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1702-MI-398 | July 25, 2017 Page 11 of 13

available to tax sale purchasers if a trial court invalidates a sale or a tax deed, 

but it does not provide an independent basis for a court to determine a tax sale 

is invalid.

[23] Next, the Auditor and the Treasurer claim the trial court had the equitable 

authority to “prevent injustice” to Ovation REO and Kolodziej. Appellees’ 

Brief p. 12. They cite In re 2014 Johnson Cty. Tax Sale, 48 N.E.3d 340 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2015), M Jewell, LLC v. Powell, 954 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), and

Tajuddin v. Sandhu Petroleum Corp. No. 3, 921 N.E.2d 891 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 

Those cases are distinguishable. In each of those cases, the owners of properties 

that were sold at tax sales sought relief, claiming the process by which they 

were supposed to receive notice of the tax sales was defective. The courts 

granted equitable relief to protect the owners from losing their properties 

unfairly. By contrast, in this case neither the sellers nor the purchasers of the 

parcels appeared in the case to protect their property interests, and there is no 

showing of error in the tax sale process.

[24] The Auditor and the Treasurer further argue that Lamasco is a “professional 

tax sale investor” and knew the risks of buying properties at tax sales, 

contending this is a case of “buyer beware.” Appellees’ Br. pp. 5, 13. They 

further state Ovation REO and Kolodziej were prejudiced by the Auditor’s 

unauthorized endorsement of the deeds because, if the Auditor had refused to 

endorse the transfers as required by Indiana Code section 32-21-8-7, the refusal 

would have “alert[ed] them of the ongoing tax sale proceedings.” Id. at 10. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1702-MI-398 | July 25, 2017 Page 12 of 13

[25] Nothing in the plain language of Indiana Code section 32-21-8-7 indicates the 

procedure outlined in that statute is intended to inform potential buyers of the 

property’s status. Rather, it is more accurate to state that the principle of 

“buyer beware” applies to all parties. Both Tax Ease and Unique Real Estate 

were aware or reasonably should have been aware that their properties had 

been auctioned at a tax sale, thanks to notices provided by Lamasco. Any 

entity or person seeking to buy Tax Ease and Unique Real Estate’s parcels 

could have inquired as to the parcels’ status.

[26] Further, the record does not conclusively demonstrate that Ovation REO and 

Kolodziej were unaware that the properties they had purchased were subject to 

tax liens following a tax sale. Tax Ease’s quitclaim deed to Ovation REO 

stated the deed was “subject to any and all liens” and “all taxes both current 

and delinquent.” Appellant’s App. p. 53. Unique Real Estate’s warranty deed 

to Kolodziej informed him the deed was “subject to 2015 taxes due and payable 

2016” as well as “any and all . . . matters of record.” Id. at 59.2

[27] The Auditor and the Treasurer argue the trial court’s judgment must be upheld 

because they have a legitimate concern that the Auditor’s failure to comply with 

Indiana Code section 32-21-8-7 will subject the county to lawsuits by Kolodziej 

 

2 The Auditor and Treasurer further assert that reversing the trial court would be particularly unfair to

Kolodziej because he “would literally lose his home.” Appellees’ Br. p. 12. The record establishes there is a 

house on the parcel, and Kolodziej indicated on a form that he intended for it to be his primary residence, but 

there is no information about the home’s condition or whether he has moved into the house. In addition, 

Kolodziej paid only ten dollars for Unique Real Estate’s interest in the parcel, which would cause a 

reasonable person to conclude his investment in the parcel is not compelling.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 33A01-1702-MI-398 | July 25, 2017 Page 13 of 13

and Ovation REO. Just as the Auditor’s failure to comply with Indiana Code 

section 32-21-8-7 did not impact the tax sale process, any potential liabilities of

the county similarly should not impact the tax sale process. In any event, 

concerns about civil liability seem premature when Kolodziej and Ovation 

REO also failed to comply with Indiana Code section 32-21-8-7 and did not 

take any steps to protect their interests in the parcels they had purchased.

[28] The Auditor’s failure to comply with Indiana Code section 32-21-8-7 did not 

provide a basis for the trial court to invalidate the tax sale and vacate its orders 

directing the issuance of tax deeds. As a result, the trial court’s judgment 

cannot be sustained. We reverse and remand with instructions to vacate the 

January 23, 2017 order and reinstate the orders to the Auditor to issue tax deeds 

for parcels 413 and 91 to Lamasco.

Conclusion

[29] For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and 

remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[30] Reversed and remanded.

Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.