I N THE

Indiana Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case No. 23S-TP-00090 

In Re the 2020 Madison County Tax Sale;

James A. Crowe and Phyllis Lynn Crowe,

Appellants (Interested Parties below),

–v–

Savvy IN, LLC, 

Appellee (Petitioner below).

Argued: June 6, 2023 | Decided: October 11, 2023 

Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court 

No. 48C03-2112-TP-757

The Honorable Andrew R. Hopper, Judge, 

and The Honorable Christopher A. Cage, Master Commissioner 

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals

No. 22A-TP-1113 

Opinion by Justice Massa

Chief Justice Rush and Justices Slaughter, Goff, and Molter concur.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-TP-00090 | October 11, 2023 Page 2 of 12

Massa, Justice

Savvy IN, LLC challenges the Court of Appeals’ decision granting 

James and Phyllis Crowe additional time to redeem their properties. 

Savvy IN argues their certified and first-class mailed notice letters, which 

notified the Crowes that the company purchased their properties at a tax 

sale, satisfy the minimum requirements under the Fourteenth 

Amendment’s Due Process Clause and Indiana law. Because we find 

Savvy IN’s notice letters met these minimum requirements, we affirm the 

trial court’s denial of the Crowes’ Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6) motion. 

Facts and Procedural History

In 1997, James and Phyllis Crowe (collectively, “the Crowes”) acquired 

title to three parcels of land (“Properties”), where the couple has resided 

since 1998. In 2019, the Crowes received notice that their Properties were 

sold in a tax sale due to the failure to pay their 2018 property taxes. The 

Crowes admitted they received the required constitutional and statutory 

notices informing them they had a right to redeem their Properties. Phyllis 

went to the Madison County Auditor’s Office and paid the redemption 

amount. She believed this payment covered all taxes due for 2018 and 

2019, but the payment only covered the 2018 delinquent taxes. 

In September 2020, Madison County again certified the Properties for a 

tax sale due to delinquent 2019 property taxes. Under Indiana Code 

section 6-1.1-24-4(b), Madison County mailed notice of the 2020 Tax Sale 

to the Crowes’ mailing address by certified mail, return receipt requested, 

and first-class mail, informing them of the tax sale and their opportunity 

to redeem their Properties. This time, the Crowes did not redeem their 

Properties and the trial court ordered the Properties to be sold.

That October, Savvy IN purchased the Properties at the tax sale. On 

February 10, 2021, as required by Indiana Code section 6-1.1-25-4.5(d), 

Savvy IN notified the Crowes by certified mail, return receipts requested, 

that their Properties had been purchased at the tax sale and they had until 

October 5, 2021, to redeem them. The certified mail receipts note the date 

of delivery occurred on “2-17” with “HVHR2C79” or “HVHR2C-19” in 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-TP-00090 | October 11, 2023 Page 3 of 12

the signature line. The return receipts do not appear to be signed by either 

of the Crowes.1 Savvy IN also mailed a copy of notice to the Crowes via 

first-class United States mail. Neither the certified mail nor the first-class 

mail was returned to Savvy IN, and Savvy IN did not take further action 

to notify the Crowes. 

October 5 came and went without redemption. Savvy IN petitioned the 

trial court under Indiana Code section 6-1.1-25-4.6 to direct the county 

auditor to issue tax deeds for the Properties and mailed notice of the 

verified petition to the Crowes via certified mail, return receipt requested

and a copy of the notice via first-class mail. The certified mail receipt 

states the notice letter was delivered on “12-13-[indecipherable year],” 

with lines drawn through the signatory’s name and the signature line 

accompanied by an indecipherable signature. The return receipts do not 

appear to be signed by either of the Crowes. Neither the certified mail nor 

the first-class mail was returned to Savvy IN, and Savvy IN did not take 

further action to notify the Crowes. The Crowes did not object to the 

petition within thirty days, so the trial court granted Savvy IN’s petition, 

and the county auditor issued the tax deeds not long after that. 

On February 10, 2022, the Crowes moved for relief from the judgment 

under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6) claiming they did not receive any notice 

letters, thus rendering the judgment and tax deeds void. At a hearing, the 

1 Typically, when certified letters include a return receipt request, the receiving customer 

signs for the parcel and the return receipt is mailed back to the sender. About: Domestic Return 

Receipt, U.S. Postal Serv., 

https://about.usps.com/publications/pub370/pub370_v10_revision_012016_tech_005.htm, 

archived at https://perma.cc/FMS7-YNKX (last visited Oct. 10, 2023). In March 2020, the 

United States Postal Service adjusted operations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

USPS Coronavirus Updates for Residential Customers, U.S. Postal Serv., 

https://about.usps.com/who/profile/history/pdf/delivering-during-covid-19.pdf, archived at 

https://perma.cc/XAE3-Z2Y5 (last visited Oct. 10, 2023). To avoid close contact during the 

pandemic, USPS modified its procedure. Id. Instead of signing for the certified mail, the 

customer held up some form of identification, such as a driver’s license, to the window and 

the carrier entered the customer’s first initial and last name on their handheld delivery device 

or hardcopy certified receipts. Id. Additionally, instead of a customer’s signature, the mail 

carrier printed their own initials, route number, and the notation C19. Id. The mail carrier 

would then leave the mail in the mailbox or by the customer’s door. Id. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-TP-00090 | October 11, 2023 Page 4 of 12

Crowes testified they did not receive any of the notice letters from the 

County or Savvy IN regarding the Properties’ delinquent taxes and the 

2020 tax sale.

The trial court denied the Crowes’ motion on April 22, 2022, and the 

Crowes appealed. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals 

acknowledged the importance of notice, but declined to engage in an 

actual due process analysis applicable to the Crowes’ claims. Instead, the 

panel reversed on equitable grounds affording the Crowes an extra thirty 

days to redeem their Properties. In re 2020 Madison Cnty. Tax Sale, 200 

N.E.3d 929, 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022).

Savvy IN petitioned for transfer, which we granted, thus vacating the 

Court of Appeals’ opinion. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A). 

Standard of Review

Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) is one way for a property owner to challenge 

the sale of their property as void because they did not receive adequate 

notice. See Diversified Invs., LLC v. U.S. Bank, NA, 838 N.E.2d 536, 544–45 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. A trial court determines whether the 

judgment is void or valid. See Menard, Inc. v. Lane, 68 N.E.3d 1106, 1109 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2017), modified on reh’g, 86 N.E.3d 228 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2017),trans. denied. If a trial court finds the judgment void, then the 

judgment cannot be enforced, but if the judgment is valid, then the Trial 

Rule 60(B) motion must be denied. Id. (quoting Anderson v. Wayne Post 64, 

Am. Legion Corp., 4 N.E.3d 1200, 1205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied). A 

denial of a motion for relief from judgment is reviewed for abuse of 

discretion. Citimortgage, Inc. v. Barabas, 975 N.E.2d 805, 812 (Ind. 2012). A 

trial court abuses its discretion when its denial is “clearly against the logic 

and effect of the facts” and inferences supporting the judgment for relief. 

Id. (quoting McCullough v. Archbold Ladder Co., 605 N.E.2d 175, 180 (Ind. 

1993)). “On a motion for relief from judgment, the burden is on the 

movant to demonstrate that relief is both necessary and just.” Darling v. 

Martin, 827 N.E.2d 1199, 1202 (Ind. App. 2005) (quoting G.B. v. State, 715 

N.E.2d 951, 953 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)), reh’g denied.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-TP-00090 | October 11, 2023 Page 5 of 12

Discussion and Decision

When a property owner fails to pay property taxes, a county may sell 

the property to recover the delinquency. Ind. Code §§ 6-1.1-24-1 to -14. But 

before the county may deprive the owner of his land, it must give notice

“in a manner that satisfies due process requirements of the United States 

Constitution.” Lamasco Redevelopment, LLC v. Henry Cnty., 80 N.E.3d 257, 

260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (citing Lindsay v. Neher, 988 N.E.2d 1207, 1209 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2013)), aff’d on reh’g, 84 N.E.3d 1243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), 

trans. granted, 98 N.E.3d 71 (Ind. 2018), trans denied, 97 N.E.3d 606 (Ind. 

2018). The court must “ensure the basic requirements of due process are 

met in a particular case.” Ind. Land Tr. Co. v. XL Inv. Properties, LLC, 155 

N.E.3d 1177, 1182 (Ind. 2020).

Here, Savvy IN argues that it provided sufficient notice, and that the 

appellate opinion below departs from both this Court’s decision in Indiana 

Land Trust Company v. XL Investment Properties, LLC, 155 N.E.3d 1177 (Ind. 

2020), and the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Flowers, 

547 U.S. 220 (2006). We agree and find Savvy IN complied with federal 

due process and state statutory requirements and thus affirm the trial 

court’s denial of the Crowes’ Trial Rule 60(B)(6) motion.

I. Savvy IN’s notices to the Crowes satisfy due 

process.

First, we review whether Savvy IN satisfied constitutional due process. 

Before the tax sale of delinquent property by the county, the Fourteenth 

Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires that “notice reasonably 

calculated” be given to the property owners, informing them of the 

pending tax sale because they should have a chance to object. Mennonite 

Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 795 (1983) (quoting Mullane v. Cent.

Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). The United States 

Supreme Court and this Court have outlined how notice can satisfy this

constitutional threshold. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-TP-00090 | October 11, 2023 Page 6 of 12

Relevant here are two U.S. Supreme Court cases that demonstrate the 

notice the Due Process Clause requires. In the first case, Mennonite Board 

of Missions v. Adams, Elkhart County, Indiana posted notice of tax 

delinquency and mailed notice to the owner, but the County did not mail 

a notice letter regarding the pending tax sale to the mortgagee, an 

interested party. 462 U.S. at 794. In concluding that mailing a letter of 

notice satisfies due process, the Court explained, “[n]otice by mail or other 

means as certain to ensure actual notice is a minimum constitutional 

precondition to a proceeding which will adversely affect the liberty or 

property interests of any party, whether unlettered or well versed in 

commercial practice, if its name and address are reasonably 

ascertainable.” Id. at 800 (emphasis in original).

In the second case, Jones v. Flowers, the Supreme Court considered 

whether (and what) “additional” steps a person must take to provide 

reasonable notice when a mailed notice letter is returned undelivered. 547 

U.S. 220, 223 (2006). After certifying the property as delinquent, the 

Arkansas Commissioner of state lands mailed Jones, who had since 

moved elsewhere and had not updated his address with the tax collector, 

a notice letter at the property’s address, but the letter was returned as 

“unclaimed.” Id. at 224. Flowers eventually bought the property, and 

Jones filed suit alleging inadequate notice resulted in the unlawful sale of 

his property without due process. Id. The Supreme Court opined that due 

process requires taking “additional reasonable steps” to provide notice 

when a notice letter is returned undelivered or unclaimed, id. at 225, so

interested parties can object to the threatened action, see id. at 226. In 

determining whether notice has been reasonably calculated, the Court 

requires a “balancing” of government and individual interests. Id. at 229

(citing Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314). The Supreme Court refused to mandate 

what type of notice the government should adopt, but noted each case 

should individually assess the feasibility of taking reasonable steps, such

as sending notice via regular mail or posting notice on the property’s 

door. Id. at 234–35.

Like the Supreme Court, we too have reviewed due process notice 

requirements in three helpful cases. In Marion County Auditor v. Sawmill 

Creek, LLC, Sawmill Creek purchased property, but documents listed the 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-TP-00090 | October 11, 2023 Page 7 of 12

purchaser as “Saw Creek Investments, L.L.C.,” instead of “Sawmill Creek, 

LLC[.]” 964 N.E.2d 213, 214 (Ind. 2012). After the company moved, a 

notice of the address change referenced Sawmill, but not Saw Creek, so 

the property’s mailing address was not updated in the County’s database. 

Id. at 215. Taxes became delinquent and notice was sent via certified mail 

to the original mailing address and returned as undeliverable. Id. The 

auditor then published notice of the property’s sale in the newspaper, on a 

website, and on a list posted outside the county clerk’s office. Id. Sawmill 

Creek moved to set aside the tax sale, alleging the “provide[d] notice of 

the pending sale of its property violated the constitutional due process 

requirement articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Jones v. Flowers.” Id. 

at 217. After examining whether the auditor acted “as one desirous of 

actually informing[,]” id. at 219, we concluded the auditor satisfied the 

Flowers due-process requirements because once the auditor learned that 

the notice was not delivered, the auditor published notice in additional 

ways and searched for a better mailing address, id. at 220–22.

The second case, M & M Investment Group, LLC v. Ahlemeyer Farms, Inc., 

involved a mortgagee who did not receive required pre-sale notice of the

tax sale from the county’s auditor but did receive required notice from the 

buyer regarding the completed sale and its intention to seek a tax deed.

994 N.E.2d 1108, 1111 (Ind. 2013). We reviewed Indiana’s tax sale statutes 

and determined that notice requirements are different depending on the 

class of interest at stake and “[e]ach class of interest merits its own 

analysis.” Id. at 1118.

Lastly, in Indiana Land Trust v. XL Investment Properties, LLC, we 

reviewed whether a county auditor’s “simultaneous” certified mail and 

first-class mailing of notice letters qualified as reasonably calculated notice 

under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 155 N.E.3d 

at 1179. The certified mail was returned undeliverable, but the first-class 

mail was never returned, which “indicated to the Auditor that the mail 

was received by the intended recipient.” Id. at 1189. Because the certified 

mail was returned undeliverable and other tools to find the owner proved 

unhelpful, the county auditor published notice in the local newspaper. Id. 

at 1181. The property was sold. Id. We held that the county auditor was 

not merely going through the motions but actually tried to inform the 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-TP-00090 | October 11, 2023 Page 8 of 12

owner of the impending tax sale, given the additional steps taken after the 

certified mail was returned undelivered. Id. at 1189. The Court explained 

the county auditor was not required to take even further steps to provide 

notice because the first-class mail was not returned, suggesting it was 

received, distinguishing the case from Sawmill Creek, where the auditor 

sent notice by “first-class mail after a certified letter was returned as 

undeliverable.” Id. (citing 964 N.E.2d at 219–20). The Court further 

explained the approach in Sawmill Creek was “unreasonable” because of 

“the auditor’s new knowledge that the certified letter was not deliverable 

at the listed address.” Id. Had both the first-class mail and certified mail 

been returned as undeliverable, then the auditor might have had to take 

reasonable additional steps. Id. But because “the Constitution does not 

require more than the actions taken in this case[,]” the Court would not 

“require more than the threshold requirements of due process[.]” Id.

(citing Jones, 547 U.S. at 238). 

“[T]o assess the adequacy of a particular form of notice, a Court must 

balance the interest of the State against the individual interest sought to be 

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 1184 (citing Jones, 547 

U.S. at 229). “This balancing of interests depends on the class of interest at 

stake.” Id. at 1187 (citing M & M Inv. Grp., 994 N.E.2d at 1118). In our 

evaluation, we look to “the adequacy of notice afforded” to the Crowes

“before the county sought to extinguish its interest in the property.” Id. 

This evaluation involves an examination of every relevant fact to 

determine whether Savvy IN acted “as one desirous of actually 

informing” the Crowes of the tax sale. See Sawmill Creek, 964 N.E.2d at 

218–19. “[W]hen 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.” Jones, 547 U.S. at 225. Yet additional reasonable steps will only be 

triggered if the certified and first-class mailings are returned as 

undelivered. Land Trust, 155 N.E.3d at 1189. The serving party is not 

constitutionally required to speculate whether service was sufficient 

without evidence that each mailing was undeliverable. Id. 

Our present case requires a balancing of interests between two private 

parties, see Jones, 547 U.S. at 229 (citing Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314), one party 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-TP-00090 | October 11, 2023 Page 9 of 12

seeking to obtain property purchased through a tax sale and one party 

seeking to keep their property, which was delinquent in taxes. See M & M 

Inv. Grp., 994 N.E.2d at 1118 (“Each class of interest merits its own 

analysis.”). We do not conduct an inquiry into whether the Crowes 

actually received the notice they claim not to have received, but instead 

inquire whether Savvy IN acted “as one desirous of actually informing” 

the Crowes that their property was sold at the tax sale and the tax deeds

had issued. See Sawmill Creek, 964 N.E.2d at 219; see also Mennonite Bd. of 

Missions, 462 U.S. at 800 (explaining that “[n]otice by mail or other means 

as certain to ensure actual notice” to any interested party who would be 

adversely affected by a proceeding is a “minimum constitutional 

precondition” to such a proceeding). 

In February 2021, Savvy IN sent notice letters via certified mail to the 

Crowes, informing them of their purchase. The certified mail return 

receipt noted the letter was delivered on “2-17” with “HVHR2C79” or 

“HVHR2C-19” in the signature line. Savvy IN also mailed a copy of the 

notice letter to the Crowes via first-class United States mail. And unlike in 

Sawmill Creek and Land Trust, the certified mail was not returned 

undelivered and neither was the first-class mail. Cf. Sawmill Creek, 954 

N.E.2d at 215; Land Trust, 155 N.E.3d at 1181. After the redemption period 

passed, Savvy IN petitioned for tax deeds to be issued and mailed the 

notice of the verified petition to the Crowes via certified and first-class 

mail. The certified mail receipt states the date of delivery was “12–13–

[indecipherable year],” with lines drawn through the signatory’s name 

and signature line accompanied by an indecipherable signature. Neither 

the certified mail nor the first-class mail was returned to Savvy IN as 

undelivered. The Crowes did not present contrary evidence, and since 

none of the mailed notice letters were returned to Savvy IN marked 

undeliverable, Savvy IN was not required to take “additional reasonable 

steps.” Jones, 547 U.S. at 234. As we explained in Land Trust, absent such 

evidence, Savvy IN is not constitutionally required to speculate whether

notice was sufficient because the mailings indicate actual delivery at the 

Crowes’ address. 155 N.E.3d at 1189. And because the Constitution does 

not require further actions when notice letters are not returned 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-TP-00090 | October 11, 2023 Page 10 of 12

undeliverable, see id., Savvy IN’s actions meet the federal constitutional 

threshold under the Fourteenth Amendment.

II. Savvy IN’s certified and first-class mailed notice 

letters also satisfy Indiana law.

Having found that Savvy IN’s actions complied with federal due

process requirements, we now examine their compliance with Indiana 

law. 

The General Assembly codified tax sale requirements when a real 

property owner becomes delinquent on property taxes. See I.C. § 6-1.1-24 

et seq. After a tax sale, “the county auditor shall deliver a certificate of sale 

to the purchaser[.]” I.C. § 6-1.1-24-9(a). The owner has one year to redeem 

the property. Id. §§ 6-1.1-25-1, -4. If the owner fails to redeem the property 

within the redemption period, the purchaser is entitled to a tax deed. Id. § 

6-1.1-25-4. But before the issuance of a tax deed, the purchaser must give 

“the owner of record at the time of the sale,” id. § 6-1.1-25-4.5(a), and any 

interested party “notice by certified mail, return receipt requested,” id. § -

4.5(d). The owner of record and any interested party are entitled to two 

notices. The first notice must inform the parties of the sale, the redemption 

period expiration date, and the date on or after a tax deed petition will be 

filed. Id. § -4.5(e). The second notice must inform the parties that the 

purchaser petitioned for a tax deed. Id. § 6-1.1-25-4.6. 

Here, Savvy IN presented evidence to the trial court with its petition for 

a tax deed that it mailed, by certified return receipt requested and firstclass mail, the two required notices for each parcel. Id. §§ 6-1.1-25-4.5, -4.6. 

The first notice Savvy IN sent to the Crowes was mailed via certified mail, 

return receipt requested, notifying the Crowes that the Properties were 

purchased at the tax sale, the redemption period expired on October 5, 

2021, and they intended to petition for a tax deed on or after October 6, 

2021. See id. § 6-1.1-25-4.5. Savvy IN received the return receipt, which 

indicated delivery was made on “2-17.” Savvy IN also mailed a copy of 

the notice to the Crowes via first-class mail. The redemption period came 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-TP-00090 | October 11, 2023 Page 11 of 12

and went without payment, and Savvy petitioned for the tax deeds of the 

Properties. 

The second required statutory notice was sent to the Crowes via 

certified and first-class mail, notifying them that Savvy IN petitioned the 

court for the Properties’ tax deeds. See id. § 6-1.1-25-4.6. The certified 

return receipt revealed delivery was made on “12-13-[indecipherable 

year],” with lines drawn through the signatory’s name and an 

indecipherable signature. Once again, neither the certified mail nor the 

first-class mail was returned to Savvy IN as undeliverable. Yet the Crowes 

argued they did not receive any notices, rendering the judgment and the 

tax deeds void. But none of the four mailings, either certified mail or firstclass mail, that Savvy IN sent to the Crowes’ mailing address were 

returned marked undeliverable, confirming the notices were delivered 

and that no additional reasonable steps needed to be taken. Land Trust, 

155 N.E.3d at 1188 (noting that, if both certified and first-class mail are 

returned to the sender, then an auditor need only take “an additional 

reasonable step if practical”). “Failure by an owner to receive or accept the 

notice required . . . does not affect the validity of the judgment and order.” 

I.C. § 6-1.1-24-4(a). 

Conclusion

Savvy IN’s mailed notices satisfied the constitutional and statutory 

requirements, and it is thus entitled to the tax deeds issued by the trial 

court. The trial court is affirmed. 

Rush, C.J., and Slaughter, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-TP-00090 | October 11, 2023 Page 12 of 12

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Ralph E. Sipes

Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Lewis Maudlin

Bedford, Indiana

Thomas C. Buchanan

Buchanan & Bruggenschmidt, P.C.

Zionsville, Indiana

Vivek Vinod Gupta

Highland Beach, Florida