## FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT : ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE: DONALD J. TRIBBETT ANNE H. POINDEXTER Tribbett Law Office STEPH E NIE K. GOOKINS Logansport, Indiana Campbell Kyle Proffitt LLP Carmel, Indiana


## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN RE: THE CARROLL COUNTY ) 2012 TAX SALE ) ) TWIN LAKES REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT, ) ) Appellant

- Intervenor , ) ) vs. ) No. 08A02

- 1303

- MI

- 220 ) STEVEN E. HRUSKA, VIRGINIA HANNA, ) and EQUITY TRUST COMPANY FBO #80677 , ) ) Appellee s - Petitioners, ) ) and ) ) CARROLL COUNTY, INDIANA, by and ) through the CARROLL COUNTY AUDITOR, ) ) Appellee

- Respondent

. )2 APPEAL FROM THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Benjamin A. Diener, Judge The Honorable Julian L. Ridlen, Judge The Honorable K athy R. Smith, Senior Judge The Honorable David A. Cox, Senior Judge Cause No. 08C01

- 1208

- MI

- 15

A ugust 8, 2013 OPINION

– FOR PUBLICATION BAKER, Judge The p rimary issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in interpret ing Ind iana Code sectio n 13

- 26

- 14

- 4 , which prohibit s real property from being sold at a tax sale when the only lien against the property was for unpaid sewer bills. The appellees

petitioners Steven Hruska, Virginia Hanna, and Equity Tr ust Company (collectively, the
p etitioners) successfully petitioned the trial court to have their respective properties removed from the county tax sale list when it was determined that unpaid sewage bills were the only liens on the parcels. The appellant

- intervenor, Twin Lakes Regional Sewer District (TLRSD), appeals that determination , alleging that the trial court misinterpreted the provisions of Indiana Code section 13

- 26

- 14

- 4 regarding the removal of the properties from the tax sale list

. We conclude that the trial court properly determin ed that the statute prohibits foreclosure on the property at a tax sale when an unpaid sewer bill is the only lien that exists on the property. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.3 FACTS 1 TLRSD is a regional sewer district that services a reas in Carroll and White

c ounties. The petitioners own properties in Carroll County that are served by TLRSD’ s

sewers. When th ose property owners did not pay their s ewer bills, TLRSD perfected liens against the properties and certified those liens to th e Carroll County Auditor for collection with the property tax bill. Apparently, payments had been made to the Treasurer of Carroll County, and the Treasurer credited those payments entirely to property taxes that had accrued against the property, thus lea ving the sewer l iens unpaid.
O n August 28, 2012, the Treasurer and Auditor of Carroll County filed a joint application for a judgment and order of s ale in the Carroll Circuit Court, together with their joint affidavit. The application for the judgment a nd sale requested that the trial
court order j udgment against the listed properties as a result of unpaid property taxes and special assessments

. The a pplication also requested that the properties be sold to satisfy obligation s for unpaid property taxes a nd special assessments.

1 We note that Indiana Regional Sewer District Association (IRSDA) filed an amicus brief in this case. The IRSDA’ s mission is to support the various sewer districts and to collect and share information that focuses on their role in protecting the environment and public health , while also supporting economic development and providing a public convenience. The IRSDA submits that the “misinterpretation of Ind. Code § 13

- 26

- 14

- 4 by the trial court and its application to all collection processes for sewer lin es is of paramount importance and will affect all sewer districts’ ability to collect unpaid sewer bills.” Amicus Br. p. 1.4

The application averred that notice had been sent to the petitioners at least twenty

one days before the judgment application was filed. Both the application and affidavit identified the properties that the petitioners owned as b eing subject to s ale for unpaid property taxes and assessments

. On August 29, 2012, the trial court entered a judgment and order of sale , directing the sale of the properties to satisfy the payment of taxes and special assessments. Thereafter, in Septemb er 2012, Hanna and Hruska filed letters with the trial court, stating that TLRSD’s liens against their properties were the sole liens against those properties. The letters stated that because TLRSD’s liens were the only liens that existed on the propertie s , the land could not be sold at a tax sale. In support of that proposition, the petitioners cited Indiana Code section 13

- 26

- 14

- 4 , which provides in part that rates, fees, or charges made, assessed, or established by the district are a lien, . . . for m unicipal sewage works, on a lot, parcel of land, or building that is connected with or uses the works of the district. . . . A lien under this chapter that is the only lien on a property may not be foreclosed. 2
O n September 7, 2012, a petition to remov e the parcel s from a tax sale was filed by Zachary Dague as a beneficiary of the Equity Trust Company. Dague’s petition requested that the trust property be removed from the tax sale based on claims that the property had been purchased at a tax sale and T LRSD’s sewer liens against the property

2 This statute is more fully set out in our discussion below.5

were invalid. The petition apparently w as sent to the Carroll County Auditor and
Treasurer. Although none of the three requests for relief from the tax sale w ere served on
TLRSD , the trial court entered orders on September 10, 2012, as to the Hanna and Hruska properties. The se orders recited Hanna’s and Hruska’s contention that TLRSD’ s sewer liens were the sole liens against the properties and , therefore, those properties should be removed from the tax sale that w as scheduled for September 14, 2012. The trial court determined that while a sewer lien existed on the propert ies , Indiana Code section 13

- 26

- 14

- 4 prohibits foreclos ure if that is the only type of lien on the property . The trial court’s order a lso provi ded that if the Auditor believe d that other liens exist ed against the Hanna or Hruska propert ies, TLRSD could request a hearing

. The trial court also ordered on September 10, 2012, that the Equity Trust Company property should be removed from the tax sale “in order to hold a hearing in this matter.” Appellant’ s App. p. 2, 25

. Th at order set a hearing on that petition for October 9, 2012. On the day of the hearing, Lisa Dague appeared for Equity Trust Company

. Lisa argued the merits of the petition, but no evidence was presented, and no action was taken

. Instead, the trial court rescheduled the matter for a hearing on November 26, 2012, to provide the petitioners the opportunity to serve notice on any lienholders. Although Lisa again appeared at the Nov ember 26 hearing, the trial court took no action because Lisa was not licensed to practice law and she was attempting to represent the6

corporation. As a result, the trial court continued the matter indefinitely pending a request for a hearing.
On Januar y 29, 2013, TLRSD moved to intervene in the action . The motion stated that the orders removing the Hanna, Hruska, and the Equity Trust Company properties from the 2012 tax sale were entered “without appropriate notice” to TLRSD and that TLRSD was entitle d to intervene pursuant to Ind iana Trial Rule 24 (A) to protect its interest in the sewer liens. Appellant’s App. p. 26

- 28. TLRSD ’s motion to intervene included a motion to set aside the trial court’s orders remov ing the properties from the tax sale . The motion asserted that the September 10, 2012 , orders were entered without notice to TLRSD and that the trial court failed to properly apply the provisions of Ind iana Code section 13

- 26

- 14

- 4.
T he trial court granted TLRSD’ s request to intervene on February 6, 2013, and on that same day, an additional order was entered denying TL RSD’ s motion to set aside the September 10, 2012 judgment s . The trial court ruled, among other things, that because no other liens on the properties existed, the land could not be so ld “at the tax sale” pursuant to Indiana Code section 13

- 26

- 14

- 4. Appellant’s App. p. 4. On February 26, 2013, TLRSD filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court subsequently denied. This appeal ensue s, and T LRSD alleges that nothing warrante d the removal of the properties from the tax sale.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION7

The issue to be resolved comes to us as a denial of a motion to correct error. We review a trial court’ s decision to deny a motion to correct error for an abuse of discretion,

an d reversal will occur only when the trial court’ s decision was against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, together with the inferenc es that can be drawn therefrom. Ind. State Bd. o f Educ. v. Brownsburg Comm. Sch. Corp, , 842 N.E .2d 885, 889 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). As noted above, TLRSD maintains that the trial court erred in removing the petitioners’ property from the tax sale. More particularly, TLRSD claims that the trial
court “erred in its interpretation of I.C. § 13

- 26

- 14

- 4’s prohibition against foreclosure of a lien if a sewer lien is the only lien against the property.” Appellant’s App. p. 5. Put another way, TLRSD contends that the trial court’s broad interpretation of Indiana Code
section 13

- 26

- 14

- 4 regarding the prevent ion of the sale of property at a tax sale merely because of a sewer lien has the potential to “bankru pt a regional sewer district.” Id. at 42.
We note that the petitioners have not filed an appellee’s brief. When the appellee has failed to submit a b rief , we need not undertake the burden of devel oping arguments on the appellee s ’ behalf. Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang , 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (Ind. 2006). Rather, we will reverse the trial court’ s judgment if the appellant’ s brief presents a case of prima f acie error. Id. Prima facie error in this context is defined as “ at first sight, on first app earance, or on the face of it. ” Id. Where the appellant is unable to meet this burden, we will affirm. Id.8

In determining whether the trial court properly rem oved the petitioners’ property
from the tax sale , we initially set forth th e provisions of Indiana Code section 13

- 26

- 14

- 4 , which provide that rates, fees, or charges made, assessed, or established by the district are a lien, in the same manner establish ed under IC 36

- 9

- 23 for municipal sewage works, on a lot, parcel of land, or building that is connected with or uses the works of the district. Liens under this chapter: (1) attach; (2) are recorded; (3) are subject to the same penalties, int erest, and reasonable attorney’ s fees on recovery; and (4) shall be collected and enforced; in substantially the same manner as provided in IC 36

- 9

- 23

- 31 through IC 36

- 9

- 23

- 34. A lien under this chapter that is the only lien on a property may not be foreclosed

. ( Emphasis added). In construing this statute, we note that “foreclosure” has been defined as a legal proceeding “to terminate a mortgagor’s interest in property, instituted by the lender (the mortgagee) either to gain title or to force a sale in order to s atisfy the unpaid debt secured by the property. Black’s Law Dictionary ( 7 th ed. 1999). Also, a specific subsection of the definition of foreclosure in Black’s Law Dictionary defines “tax foreclosure” as “ [a] public authority’s seizure and sale of property for nonpayment of taxes. ” Id. In this case, n otwithstanding TLRSD’s claims, it is apparent that the t rial court examined the plain language of Indiana Code section 13

- 26

- 14

- 4 and determined that the9

type of lien here may not be e nforced as provided in Indiana C ode section 36

- 9

- 23

- 31 through Indiana Code section 36

- 9

- 23

- 34, namely by selling the property at a tax sale if the unpaid sewer bill lien is the only lien that exists on the property. To illustrate the remedies, procedures, and enforceability t hat may be available to a sewer district for unpaid bills , we note that Indiana Code section 36

- 9

- 23

- 31 provides that If fees assessed against real property under this chapter

. . . are not paid within the time fixed by the municipal legislative body, th ey are delinquent. A penalty of ten percent (10%) of the amount of the fees attaches to the delinquent fees. The amount of the fee, the pen alty, and a reasonable attorney’ s fee may be recovered by the board in a civil action in the name of the municipality

. (Emphasis added). In brief, Indiana C o de section 36

- 9

- 23

- 32 sets forth the timing of the recording of various liens, lists the superior ity of the liens in most instances, and states that notice of delinquency must be provided, when payment must be rece ived, and how notice must be sent. Another section, Indiana C ode section 36

- 9

- 23

- 33 , provides for the deferral of the collection of unpaid fees and penalties in some instances. And the officer in charge of collecting the fees should prepare a list of the delinquent fees along with the penalty, record that list with the county recorder, and mail notice to the owner that a lien has been recorded as a result of delinquent fees. The liens should then be released once they have been fully paid. If delinquen t fee s and penalties, for example, are not paid, they are to be collected by the county treasurer in the same manner that delinquent property taxes are collected.10

Finally, Indiana Code section 36

- 9

- 23

- 34 provides for a municipality ’s foreclosure
of a lien to collect fees and penalties

. The municipality or board is entitled to recover the amount of the fees and penal ties and a reasonable attorney’ s fee. Also, the trial court should order the sale without relief from valuation or appraisement laws.
In const ruing these provisions, it is apparent that although TLRSD could not foreclose its liens against the petitioners’ properties, TLRSD may file a civil action to

recover its fees in accordance with Indiana Code section 36

- 9

- 23

- 31. Indeed, as discussed above, once a judgment is obtained, nothing in the statutes prevent s TLRSD from executing, garnishing, and pursuing proceedings supplemental similar to other civil judgment s . That said, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in removing the pa rcels from the tax sale when construing the provisions of Indiana Code section 13

- 26

- 14

- 4. 3 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed

. MAY, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.

3 We note that while TLRSD raises various procedural issues such as whether it was given adequate opportunity to be heard and whether the petitioners’ properties could be rem oved when no hearings were held, we need not address these issues in light of our conclusion that Indiana Code section 13

- 26

- 14

- 4 unambiguously states that a lien regarding the collection of unpaid sewer bills through foreclosure proceedings is p rohibited.