Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2150 | July 30, 2019 Page 1 of 15

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Greg A. Bouwer

Jeff Carroll

Koransky Bouwer & Poracky, P.C.

Dyer, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

XL INVESTMENT PROPERTIES,

LLC

Matthew J. Hagenow

Newby, Lewis, Kaminski & Jones, 

LLP

LaPorte, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

LAPORTE COUNTY AUDITOR

J. Alex Bruggenschmidt

Buchanan & Bruggenschmidt, 

P.C.

Zionsville, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Indiana Land Trust Company, 

f/k/a Lake County Trust 

Company TR #4340,

Appellant-Movant,

v.

XL Investment Properties, LLC, 

and LaPorte County Auditor,

Appellees-Respondents

July 30, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-MI-2150

Appeal from the LaPorte Superior 

Court

The Honorable Richard R. 

Stalbrink, Jr., Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

46D02-1509-MI-1642
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2150 | July 30, 2019 Page 2 of 15

Baker, Judge.

[1] Indiana Land Trust Company, f/k/a Lake County Trust Company TR #4340 

(Trust 4340), appeals the judgment of the trial court denying its motion to set 

aside a tax deed and quiet title judgment issued to XL Investment Properties, 

LLC (XL Investment). Trust 4340 argues that the trial court erroneously 

determined that the motion to set aside was untimely filed and the tax sale 

notice process employed by the LaPorte County Auditor (the Auditor) was 

statutorily and constitutionally insufficient. Finding that the motion to set aside 

was not untimely and that the notice process was constitutionally insufficient, 

we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Facts1

[2] Peter Dellaportas is a decades-long real estate developer who owns many 

investment properties. At some point in the past, Dellaportas purchased a 140-

acre property, which used to be a municipal airport, in Michigan City. The 

property has since been subdivided into multiple parcels, some of which have 

been developed for commercial use.

[3] Dellaportas’s company, located in Chicago, is called Midwest Investment. In 

June 1993, Dellaportas put one of the undeveloped parcels, totaling 

approximately thirty acres (the Property) into a trust, Trust 4340, with either 

 

1 We held oral argument in Indianapolis on July 2, 2019.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2150 | July 30, 2019 Page 3 of 15

himself or Midwest Investment as the beneficiary. Lake County Trust 

Company (the Trust Company) was the entity that helped him process and 

finalize the trust. 

[4] The deed directed that property tax bills for the Property should be sent to 

Midwest Investment at 415 North LaSalle Street, Suite 700, in Chicago. In 

1994, Midwest Investment relocated to Suite 200 in the same building and 

remained there for approximately ten2 years. In 2014, Midwest Investment 

moved to 432 North Clark Street, Suite 304, in Chicago. Midwest Investment 

did not update the Auditor with its changes of address. 

[5] Midwest Investment paid the property taxes on the Property from 1993 through 

2008 but failed to pay any property taxes from 2009 through 2015. In 2015, 

LaPorte County (the County) determined that the Property’s outstanding tax 

liability totaled $230,017.26.

[6] The County held a tax sale in 2015 (the Tax Sale); the certified Tax Sale list 

included the Property. The County engaged SRI, Inc. (SRI), a local 

government contractor, to assist with various aspects of the tax sale process, 

including the mailing of thousands of tax notices. The Work Plan Agreement 

entered into between the County and SRI stated that the parties (including SRI, 

the Auditor, and the Treasurer) would “individually or collectively perform or 

 

2 Dellaportas testified that Midwest Investment remained in Suite 200 for ten years, but the next change of 

address he mentioned occurred in 2014. Tr. Vol. II p. 25, 27.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2150 | July 30, 2019 Page 4 of 15

cause to be performed by employees of their organization the actions defined 

herein which are required to execute the County Tax Sale in compliance with 

Ind. Code 6-1.1-24 and Ind. Code 6-1.1-25.” Tr. Ex. 21. The Work Plan 

Agreement also stated that “the Auditor agrees to search its internal records for 

a better address for the owner(s) of properties for which the certified mail 

notices are returned and provide the results of said searches to SRI . . . .” Id.

[7] In 2015, the General Assembly amended Indiana Code section 6-1.1-24-4. 

Following that amendment, the Auditor believed it no longer had an obligation 

to search for a better address if certified mail notices were returned as 

undeliverable.

[8] On July 31, 2015, SRI prepared the notice of the tax sale of the Property and 

sent it by certified mail (the Certified Mail Notice) to Trust 4340 at Suite 700 on 

North LaSalle Drive. The Certified Mail Notice did not contain a street 

address or common description of the Property. The Certified Mail Notice was 

returned, stamped “Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to 

Forward,” and bore a handwritten note stating “refused.” Tr. Ex. 24. The 

notice was also mailed to the same address on the same date by regular, firstclass mail (the First Class Notice). The First Class Notice was not returned.

[9] SRI generated a “returned mail to search” list for all entities that were sent 

notices of the Tax Sale; the list included Trust 4340. In August 2015, SRI 

performed an additional search for addresses of those entities, but evidently was 

unable to find the current address for Trust 4340 and/or Midwest Investment. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2150 | July 30, 2019 Page 5 of 15

[10] On August 7, 2015, the address for tax notices for Trust 4340 and the adjacent 

parcel was changed in the LaPorte County system used by the Auditor and 

assessor. Beginning on that date, the system listed the correct, current address 

on North Clark Street.

[11] The Auditor did not undertake any effort to find current addresses for property 

owners whose certified mail was returned as undeliverable. Although SRI 

posted to its website if first class or certified mail was returned, no one from the 

Auditor’s office ever checked that website to determine if mail had been 

returned. There was never a point in the process when the Auditor looked for 

returned mail or took any action related to it. Indeed, employees of the Auditor 

readily admitted they took no action:

• “Q: Did you search your internal records for this parcel, to your 

knowledge? A: I just answered that. We did not because the first-class 

mail was not returned. Shall I say it slower?” Tr. Vol. II p. 71.

• “Q: You didn’t have to do anything[?] A: No. Q: So you didn’t make 

any type of determination on whether or not to search for another 

address? A: No, we did not. We didn’t search for anything. Q: So you 

could [not] have cared less if the notices were returned[?] A: That’s 

right.” Appellant’s App. Vol. III p. 59.

The Auditor published notice of the Tax Sale in the local newspaper three times 

before the Tax Sale.

[12] Dellaportas and Midwest Investment remained unaware of the Tax Sale. In 

October 2015, the Tax Sale took place, but the Property did not sell. Therefore, 

the County placed it for sale at a Live Certificate Sale in February 2016. The 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2150 | July 30, 2019 Page 6 of 15

County published notice of the Live Certificate Sale. XL Investment purchased 

the Property for $155,000. XL Investment filed a petition for a tax deed for the 

Property. The trial court entered an order issuing the deed on August 30, 2016. 

The deed was signed on September 30 and recorded on October 4, 2016. At 

some point, XL Investment filed a quiet title action, which finally resulted in 

notice to Trust 4340 on December 9, 2016.

[13] On March 9, 2017, Trust 4340 moved to set aside the judgment and tax deed. 

A bench trial took place on April 13, 2018, and on August 9, 2018, the trial 

court denied Trust 4340’s motion. In pertinent part, the trial court found as 

follows:

44. [The Notice] was sent by first class mail and certified mail 

to the owner of record at the last address of record. The 

first class mailing was not returned, leaving the Auditor 

under no obligation to take additional steps to notify the 

property owner.

***

46. Per statute, the owner of the Property was to notify the 

County of a change in address and did not.

***

48. The Court finds that although the Tax Sale notice did not 

include the property address or other description of the 

property, the Auditor and SRI still substantially complied 

with Indiana Code § 6-1.1-24-4 by providing the pin 

number and legal description and could not provide any 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2150 | July 30, 2019 Page 7 of 15

address or other description because the property was 

vacant.

***

77. Due process does not require that a property owner receive 

actual notice before the government may take his property. 

Rather, we have stated that due process requires the 

government to provide “notice reasonably calculated, 

under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of 

the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity 

to present their objections.” Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 

(2006).

78. When mailed notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, 

the State must take additional reasonable steps to attempt 

to provide notice to the property owner before selling his 

property, if it is practicable to do so. Id.

79. . . . In the present case, the Auditor sent two mailings, one 

via first class mail and one via certified mail. Although the 

certified mail was returned, the first class mailing was not 

returned.

80. The Court in Jones held that when a mailing is returned 

unclaimed, additional steps must be taken to provide 

notice. Id. The County in the present case took that 

additional step when they sent two mailings through two 

different methods. They also went a step further and 

published notice of the pending Tax Sale three times in the 

local paper.

***
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2150 | July 30, 2019 Page 8 of 15

84. Therefore, the County’s efforts to notice the Trust prior to 

the tax sale were reasonably calculated to appraise [sic] 

Trust 4340 of the tax sale proceedings against the property 

and it was reasonably certain that the first class mailing 

informed those affected because it was never returned.

***

90. The Court finds that the Trust did not file its petition for 

relief within a reasonable amount of time for the following 

reasons:

1. The Trust did not pay real estate taxes on the

Property for eight (8) years.

2. The Trust acquired the property in 1993. Despite 

multiple moves over several years, the Auditor was 

never provided with an updated address by the 

Trust.

***

4. Peter Dellaportas testified to be an experienced real 

estate developer who knew or should have known 

that real estate taxes are due each year and the 

subsequent consequences for not paying them.

Appealed Order p. 8-16. Trust 4340 now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[14] Trust 4340 raises multiple arguments on appeal, which we reframe and restate 

as follows: (1) the trial court erroneously determined that Trust 4340’s motion 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2150 | July 30, 2019 Page 9 of 15

to set aside the tax deed and judgment was untimely filed; and (2) the trial court 

erroneously determined that the notice was sufficient under statutory and 

constitutional law and under the Work Plan Agreement.

I. Timeliness

[15] As noted above, the trial court found that Trust 4340's petition to set aside was 

untimely filed. It based this conclusion on several factors: (1) Trust 4340 did 

not pay real estate taxes on the Property for eight years; (2) Trust 4340 did not 

update the Auditor on its address changes; (3) XL Investment took the extra 

step of publishing notice of the tax proceedings in a local newspaper; and 

(3) Dellaportas is an experienced real estate developer who knew or should 

have known about the consequences of failing to pay property taxes on 

time. Trust 4340 maintains that these are improper reasons to find that its 

petition was untimely filed.

[16] As a general rule, a property owner may not contest a tax deed if more than 

sixty days have passed since the trial court entered its order issuing the 

deed. Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.6(l). There is a due process exception extending 

this period to a “reasonable time,” which will vary with the circumstances of 

each case. Edwards v. Neace, 898 N.E.2d 343, 347-48 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) 

(noting that delays in excess of one year can be reasonable depending on the 

circumstances).

[17] Here, XL Investment served Trust 4340 with the summons and complaint in a 

quiet title action on December 9, 2016. It is undisputed that this was the first 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2150 | July 30, 2019 Page 10 of 15

notice of the tax proceedings that Trust 4340 actually received. It filed its 

motion to set aside on March 9, 2017, exactly three months later (over six 

months after August 30, 2016, when the trial court ordered the Auditor to issue 

a tax deed to XL Investment).

[18] The trial court’s rationale for finding the motion untimely filed primarily 

focuses on the length of tax delinquency, as well as Trust 4340’s actions, before 

the tax sale, rather than the period of time that elapsed after the tax deed was 

issued. There is no caselaw supporting this analysis. By their very nature, tax 

sales always occur after a period of tax delinquency, often a lengthy 

one. Therefore, if trial courts could focus on the period of delinquency as 

opposed to the period of time elapsed after the tax sale occurred, there would be 

no point in the “reasonable time” exception.

[19] We find that under the circumstances of this case, a delay of six months after 

the trial court ordered the Auditor to issue a tax deed—which was only three 

months after Trust 4340 first received notice of the proceedings—was 

reasonable. Therefore, the trial court erred by finding the motion to set aside 

untimely filed.

II. Notice of Tax Sale

[20] Before the legislature amended Indiana Code section 6-1.1-24-4 in 2015, it was 

well established that due process required county auditors to search their own 

records. E.g., City of Elkhart v. SFS, LLC, 968 N.E.2d 812, 817 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2012) (noting that due process “requires the county auditor to search the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2150 | July 30, 2019 Page 11 of 15

records that it maintains” in its office); Hullett v. LaFevre, 926 N.E.2d 524, 528 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (same); Edwards, 898 N.E.2d at 349 (same); Reeder Assocs. 

II v. Chicago Belle, Ltd., 778 N.E.2d 828, 834 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (same).3 This 

caselaw does not condition the records search on other events, nor does it deem 

it a factor in a totality of the circumstances type of determination as to whether 

proper tax sale notice has been provided. Instead, it is black and white: an 

auditor is charged with knowledge of the contents of its records and is 

constitutionally obligated to search those records.

[21] It is axiomatic that the General Assembly may not legislate away constitutional 

due process protections. See Flanner House of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Flanner House 

Elem. Sch., Inc., 88 N.E.3d 242, 252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (noting that legislative 

actions “must not interfere with constitutional rights”); cf. State v. Rendleman, 

603 N.E.2d 1333, 1336 (Ind. 1992) (noting that the legislature may modify or 

abrogate common law rights “so long as such change does not interfere with 

constitutional rights”). Indeed, the purpose of Indiana Code section 6-1.1-24-4 

is “to codify the applicable due process protections and instruct the auditor on 

how to provide constitutionally sufficient notice.” Farmer Mut. Ins. Co. v. M 

 

3 The Auditor argues that the United States Supreme Court upended years of Indiana caselaw when it 

decided Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 229 (2006). But in the years following Jones, Indiana courts have 

continued to enforce unequivocally an auditor’s constitutional obligations to be aware of and search its own 

records. See City of Elkhart, 968 N.E.2d at 817; Hullett, 926 N.E.2d at 528; Edwards, 898 N.E.2d at 349; see 

also Marion Cty. Auditor v. Sawmill Creek, LLC, 964 N.E.2d 213, 218-20 (Ind. 2012) (noting that Jones informed, 

but did not alter, the long-standing due process protections put in place by Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & 

Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950)).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2150 | July 30, 2019 Page 12 of 15

Jewell, LLC, 992 N.E.2d 751, 759 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).4 Therefore, “to interpret 

the statute in a manner that conflicts with or provides less protection than the 

Due Process Clause would frustrate its clear legislative purpose.” Id. In fact, in 

this case, the Work Plan Agreement between SRI and the Auditor required the 

Auditor to search its own records for a better address for the owners of the 

properties for which certified mail notices were returned—a provision that SRI 

believed was intended to ensure that the tax sale notices complied with due 

process. Tr. Vol. II p. 113.

[22] Therefore, regardless of the language of Indiana Code section 6-1.1-24-4, the 

Auditor is charged with knowledge of the contents of its records and is 

constitutionally obligated to search those records. Here, it is undisputed that it 

did not do so.

[23] The attempts the Auditor made to locate Trust 4340 were constitutionally 

insufficient. First, the Auditor published notice of the sale in a local newspaper, 

but notice by publication is looked on with extreme disfavor in a tax sale 

situation. Jones, 547 U.S. at 237-38 (noting that publication is adequate only 

where it is not reasonably possible or even practicable to give more adequate 

warning). Second, the Auditor, through SRI, conducted an additional search 

after the certified mailing was returned as undeliverable. But a search of other 

 

4 The Auditor directs our attention to Badawi v. Orth for the proposition that tax sale notices comport with 

due process requirements if they are sent in accordance with relevant statutes. 955 N.E.2d 849, 853-54 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2011). But Badawi concerns statutory due process rather than constitutional due process—a key 

distinction that renders Badawi inapposite.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2150 | July 30, 2019 Page 13 of 15

records and databases does not comport with due process where the Auditor 

failed to search its own records first. See Reeder Assocs. II, 778 N.E.2d at 835 

(holding that while “a county auditor may go beyond the minimum 

requirements of due process and engage in a search of outside records, it may 

not do so in lieu of a search of its own record”).

[24] Third, the fact that the Auditor mailed a notice by first class mail (which was 

not returned) in addition to certified mail is not enough to satisfy due process 

given that the certified mail attempts were returned as undeliverable. Our 

appellate courts have distinguished between different ways in which certified 

mail is returned. If it is returned as “unclaimed and unable to be forwarded,” 

the auditor satisfies due process when it also sent the notice via first class mail 

and took other reasonable steps to attempt to notify the property owner. Floor 

Essence, LLC v. Marion Cty. Auditor, 14 N.E.3d 883, 885 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). If, 

on the other hand, it is returned and stamped “not deliverable as addressed, 

unable to forward,” as it was in this case, then “re-mailing the notice by first 

class [is] unreasonable.” Marion Cty. Auditor v. Sawmill Creek, LLC, 964 N.E.2d 

213, 220 (Ind. 2012); see also M&M Inv. Group, LLC v. Ahlemeyer Farms, Inc., 994 

N.E.2d 1108, 1117 (Ind. 2013) (affirming Sawmill reasoning). 

[25] It is true that here, in addition to being stamped as undeliverable and unable to 

forward, the first certified mail attempt was returned bearing the word 

“refused” in handwriting. Not only is there no indication of who wrote it or 

who “refused” it, the official Post Office stamp indicates that the mail was not 

deliverable. Given such a conflict and our preference for erring on the side of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2150 | July 30, 2019 Page 14 of 15

due process protections, we believe that the official Post Office stamp and label 

must control. Here, the Post Office deemed the notice to be not deliverable as 

addressed and unable to forward; therefore, the act of sending the notice via 

first class mail was insufficient to comply with constitutional due process.

[26] It has long been settled in Indiana that to comply with due process in tax sale 

proceedings, county auditors are charged with the knowledge of their own 

records and are required to search those records.

5 The General Assembly does 

not have the authority to codify away constitutional protections. Therefore, 

despite the language of Indiana Code section 6-1.1-24-4, the Auditor was 

required to search its records for a better address for Trust 4340 after the 

certified mail notice was returned as not deliverable.6 Under these 

circumstances, the trial court erred by denying Trust 4340’s motion to set aside 

the tax deed and quiet title judgment. Consequently, we reverse and remand.7

 

5 We note that in this day and age of digitized records, this is not a monumental task. The unchallenged 

testimony provides that after August 7, 2015, the Auditor would have been able to locate the correct address 

for Trust 4340 in its internal, searchable “Low” system. Tr. Vol. II p. 115; Tr. Ex. 8. And in any event, 

courts of this State have rejected an argument that such a search would be difficult or futile. E.g., Farmers 

Mut. Ins. Co., 992 N.E.2d at 756 (holding that this Court “could not agree that noncompliance . . . may be 

excused if it is later determined that such a search would have been fruitless”).

6 We note that the fact that Trust 4340 did not keep its changes of address updated with the Auditor is 

irrelevant to the Auditor’s exercise of constitutional duties. See Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 992 N.E.2d at 758-59 

(noting that the Jones Court “rejected any suggestion that a landowner’s failure to comply with a statutory 

obligation to keep his address updated forfeited his right to constitutionally sufficient notice” and holding 

that “a landowner’s failure to provide the auditor’s office with a correct mailing address [cannot] excuse[] the 

auditor’s failure to carry out his duties”).

7 We need not address Trust 4340’s other arguments. But we note that we have significant concerns about 

the substantive content of the notice. Specifically, the notice provided neither a street address—which is not 

surprising, given that the land was undeveloped and had no address—or a common description of the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-MI-2150 | July 30, 2019 Page 15 of 15

[27] The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded for further 

proceedings.

May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

 

Property. We question whether this notice complied with Indiana Code section 6-1.1-24-4(b)(2), which 

requires that a tax sale notice must contain either a street address or a common description of the property.