ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT			ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Brian E. Hicks					Jeffrey A. Lockwood

Indianapolis, Indiana			Anderson, Indiana

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

TAX CERTIFICATE INVESTMENTS, INC.,	) 

							) 

	Appellant (Respondent Below),	)

							) 48S02-9809-CV-490

		v.					) in the Supreme Court

							)

DAVID E. SMETHERS AND ELLEN E.	) 48A02-9704-CV-227

SMETHERS,						) in the Court of Appeals

							)

	Appellees (Petitioners Below).)

APPEAL FROM THE MADISON CIRCUIT COURT

The Honorable Fredrick R. Spencer, Judge

Cause No. 48C01-9409-MI-338

June 23, 1999

SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

	Landowners who do not pay their property taxes will eventually find that the county acts to sell the land and collect its due. 

This appeal concerns the sort of notice the delinquent owner needs

to receive.

	David and Ellen Smethers, a divorced couple, were the owners of record for real property that was sold for delinquent taxes to

Tax Certificate Investments, Inc. (TCI).  David and Ellen

petitioned to set aside the tax deed, alleging that the county did

not give adequate notice of the sale to Ellen.  The trial court set

aside the deed, and the county appealed.  The Court of Appeals

affirmed.  Tax Certificate Investments, Inc. v. Smethers, 690 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).  We grant transfer. 

	TCI raises two issues on appeal:

	1.	Whether Ellen was legally entitled to notice of the tax sale, and

	2.	Whether joint notice addressed to David and Ellen and mailed to the subject property was adequate

notice to Ellen.

Facts and Procedural History

	During their marriage, David and Ellen Smethers purchased

residential real property in Madison County, Indiana.  In April

1989, they divorced.  As part of the property settlement, the

residential property was "set over" to David, subject to an

existing mortgage and a $2,000 lien granted to Ellen, representing

her equity interest in the property.  Ellen executed a release of judgment dated July 20, 1990, acknowledging payment of the $2,000 lien.  Also in 1990, Ellen executed a quitclaim deed relinquishing

all right, title and interest in the property.  That deed was never

recorded.  As a result, David and Ellen Smethers remained joint

owners of public record. 

	In 1994, a court order for the sale of the property was

entered due to nonpayment of real estate taxes.  In May 1995, South

Trust Estate & Trust Co. sent a notice to "Smethers, David E. and Ellen E." at the property address advising that the property had been sold at a tax sale in October of 1994.  Later in 1995, South Trust assigned its interest to TCI.  

	In October 1995, TCI sent a notice that TCI had filed a

petition for a tax deed, similarly addressed to "Smethers, David E.

and Ellen E." at the property address.  David acknowledges that he

received both notices.  However, although he and Ellen spoke on a weekly basis, he did not discuss either notice with Ellen for several months.  A court order directing issuance of a tax deed to

TCI was entered on October 12, 1995.  On May 1, 1996, David and

Ellen filed a joint petition seeking invalidation of the tax deed.1 

The Statutory Framework

	A purchaser of Indiana real property that is sold for

delinquent taxes initially receives a certificate of sale.  Ind.

Code Ann. § 6-1.1-24-9 (West Supp. 1998).  A one-year redemption

period ensues.  Ind. Code Ann. § 6-1.1-25-1 (West 1998); Ind. Code

Ann. § 6-11-25-4 (West Supp. 1998).  If the owners fail to redeem

the property during that year, a purchaser who has complied with

the statutory requirements is entitled to a tax deed.  Id.  The property owner and any person with a "substantial property interest

of public record" must each be given two notices.  Ind. Code Ann. §§ 6-1.1-25-4.5, -4.6 (West Supp. 1998). 

	The first notice announces the fact of the sale has occurrede sale, the date the

redemption period will expire, and the date on or after which a tax

deed petition will be filed. Ind. Code Ann. § 6-1.1-25-4.5 (West Supp. 1998).  The second is notice announces that the purchaser has petitioned for a tax deed.  Ind. Code Ann. § 6-1.1-25-4.6 (West

Supp. 1998).

I. Entitlement to Notice

	TCI first contends that Ellen Smethers was neither a joint owner nor a party with a substantial interest of public record, and was therefore not entitled to either notice of the tax sale

pursuant to Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.5 or to notice of deed issuance

pursuant to Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.6.  Because we find TCI's second issue dispositive, we assume without deciding that Ellen was

entitled to notice.

II.  Adequacy of Notice

	TCI next contends that the joint notice addressed to David and Ellen and mailed to the subject property was adequate notice to

Ellen.  The trial court held that Ellen and David were entitled to

separate and individual notices of the tax sale and filing of the

petition for a tax deed.2  (R. at 242.)  Indiana Code § 6-1.1-25- 4.5 requires that to be entitled to a tax deed, a tax purchaser or

assignee such as TCI must: 

give[] notice of the sale, the date of expiration of the

period of redemption, and the date on or after which a

petition for the tax deed will be filed to the owner and

any person with a substantial property interest of public

record in the tract or real property. . . . The purchaser

or assignee . . . shall give the notice required . . . by

sending a copy of the notice by certified mail to the

parties described [above] at their last known addresses.

Indiana Code § 6-1.1-25-4.6 contains a comparable notice

requirement as a prerequisite to a petition for a court order for a tax deed.  Indiana Code § 6-1.1-25-16 provides that a person

"may, upon appeal, defeat the title conveyed by a tax deed executed

under section 4 of this chapter only if . . . (7) the notices

required by IC 6-1.1-24-4, and sections 4.5 and 4.6 of this chapter

were not in substantial compliance with the manner prescribed in

those sections."

	David and Ellen Smethers argue that joint notice does not

satisfy the requirements of due process, even to joint owners of

record shown as residing at the same address.  (Appellee's Br. at

12.)  The U.S. Supreme Court held in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950), that a state must provide "notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances,

to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action" prior

to taking steps that will affect a protected interest in life,

liberty, or property.  Notice is constitutionally adequate when

"the practicalities and peculiarities of the case . . . are

reasonably met."  Id. at 314-15.  

	We addressed the requirements of due process in the context of

tax sale notice in Elizondo v. Read, 588 N.E.2d 501 (Ind. 1992).  In Elizondo, the county auditor sent notices of redemption and of deed issuance to the Elizondos at the address on file with the

auditor's office.  Id. at 504.  Because the Elizondos had moved twice, the notices were returned as unclaimed or undeliverable. 

Id. at 502.  After publication of notice in local newspapers in accordance with the applicable statute, the property was deeded to

the tax sale buyers.  Id.  Had the auditor checked personal property records, or real estate transfer cards, itshe could have

found a current address for the Elizondos.  Id. at 504.  However, the Elizondos had made no effort to update their address with the

auditor's office.  Id.  We held that "[a]ll that is required is . . . notice to the owner's last known address, that is, the last

address of the owner of the specific property in question of which

the auditor has knowledge from records maintained in its office." 

Id.  Although the auditor had other addresses on file, some of which happened to be more current, we held that sending notice to

the last address listed for the property at issue was sufficient.  Id. at 504-05.

	Although the purchaser of the property rather than the county

auditor was responsible for sending the notice in this case, the

requirements for notice were the same.  The purchasers sent notice

to the recorded owners of the property, at their listed address. 

Had Ellen wished to receive notices at another address, she had

ample opportunity to update the property records.  She did not do

so.  (R. at 131-32.)3  TCI was entitled to rely on the official property records in complying with the statutory notice

requirement.  It appropriately sent notices to joint owners of

record at the address those owners had provided.  

	Indiana caselaw has for some time held the property owner 

accountable for ensuring that official property records reflect a

correct address.  In Holland v. King, 500 N.E.2d 1229, 1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986), the court stated: "Our legislature intended to

place the burden of notifying the county taxing authority of the

taxpayer's correct address upon the taxpayer.  If the county sends

notice to the taxpayer's last known address as supplied by the

taxpayer, and the notice reaches this address, then notice is

sufficient . . . ."   The controlling statute in Holland did not expressly state that notice sent to the last known address was

sufficient.  See id. at 1236.  The case here is even stronger, where the "last known address" requirement has been specifically

incorporated.  Ind. Code Ann. § 6-1.1-25-4.5(b) (West Supp. 1998). 

The conclusion that it is the taxpayer's burden to update his or

her address remains consistent with the statute as revised.  See also Smith v. Breeding, 586 N.E.2d 932, 937 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (reiterating the holding of Clark v. Jones, 519 N.E.2d 158, 160 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988), that "the onus is upon the property owners to [e]nsure that the auditor's records reflect the correct address .

. . .").

	Furthermore, the statutory notice requirement for the

redemption period calls for "a copy of the notice by certified mail to the parties described . . . at their last known addresses." Ind.

Code Ann. § 6-1.1-25-4.5(b) (West Supp. 1998) (emphasis added). 

The singular terms "copy" and "notice" to the plural "parties"

would be incongruous with a legislative intent to require separate

notices to each individual party at the same address.4  The statutory notice requirement for a petition for a tax deed, Ind.

Code § 6-1.1-25-4.6(a), provides for notice "in the same manner as

provided in section 4.5" except as to the publication requirement

if the owner cannot be located, so again there is no apparent

legislative intent to require individual notice.  A single notice

to joint owners of record listed at a single address suffices under

the plain language of the statute, as well as under the

requirements of due process.

	Conclusion

	For the aforementioned reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and direct judgment for the tax purchaser.

Dickson, Sullivan, Selby, and Boehm, JJ., concur.