Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1412-MI-543 | September 3, 2015 Page 1 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Vinod C. Gupta

Boca Raton, Florida

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Andrew M. Auersch

O’Connor & Auersch

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Vinod C. Gupta,

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

Green Tree Servicing LLC, 

f/k/a Conseco Finance Servicing 

Corp.,

Appellee-Intervenor.

September 3, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

84A01-1412-MI-543

Appeal from the Vigo Superior 

Court

The Honorable Michael J. Lewis, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

84D06-1208-MI-7316

Kirsch, Judge.

[1] Vinod C. Gupta (“Gupta”) appeals the trial court’s order setting aside the tax 

deed and voiding the tax sale of certain property he purchased for failure to 

provide proper service to the mortgage holder, Green Tree Servicing LLC 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1412-MI-543 | September 3, 2015 Page 2 of 6

(“Green Tree”), f/k/a Conseco Finance Servicing, Corp. Gupta raises the 

following restated issue for our review: whether the trial court abused its 

discretion by excluding Gupta’s witness testimony at the hearing on Green 

Tree’s motion to void the tax sale.

[2] We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On March 30, 2000, as security for a loan in the amount of $65,387.30, Michael 

and Beverly Cooper granted to Green Tree a mortgage lien on certain real 

property and the mobile home located thereon in Vigo County, Indiana. Green 

Tree’s mortgage on the property was recorded on April 7, 2000 in the Mortgage 

Record of the Vigo County Recorder. The address for Green Tree, then known 

as Conseco Finance Servicing Corp., is listed on the mortgage as “11595 N. 

Meridian Street, Suite 310, Carmel, IN 46032.” Appellee’s App. at 6. Green 

Tree had fully moved from that Carmel address by October 31, 2010.

[4] Gupta purchased the property at a tax sale on September 12, 2012. On 

February 18, 2014, while investigating for a possible foreclosure action, Green 

Tree discovered that the property had been sold to Gupta at the September 2102 

tax sale, but could find no record of notice of the sale. In response to an inquiry 

by Green Tree about the notice of sale, Gupta produced copies of certified mail 

notices required under Indiana Code sections 6-1.1-24-4.5 and 6-1.1-24-4.6. 

However, by looking to the Postal Service records, Green Tree discovered that 

both notices had been sent to the vacated Carmel address. The notice under 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1412-MI-543 | September 3, 2015 Page 3 of 6

Indiana Code section 6-1.1-24-4.5 was returned to Gupta marked as 

“Undeliverable as Addressed,” and the notice under Indiana Code section 6-

1.1-24-4.6 was returned to Gupta marked as “Addressee Unknown.” Appellee’s 

App. at 18-23. 

[5] On June 4, 2014, Green Tree filed a motion to intervene and void the tax sale in 

Vigo Superior Court under the tax sale cause number and attached as exhibits 

Gupta’s tax sale notices, the USPS tracking confirmation reports, the certified 

mail receipts, and an affidavit by Green Tree. The trial court granted Green 

Tree’s motion to intervene on June 5, 2014 and set the motion for a hearing. 

Gupta did not respond to Green Tree’s motion, but did request two 

continuances of the hearing date. 

[6] A hearing on Green Tree’s motion was held on September 22, 2014. At the 

hearing, Green Tree argued that the tax sale should be voided based on the 

failed notice by Gupta, shown by the undelivered notices returned to Gupta. 

Gupta admitted that he sent those notices, but asserted he also mailed the 

notices by regular mail and posted notice on the door of the residence. Tr. at 7-

8. Gupta further requested to present witness testimony to support his 

contention that he had taken additional steps to notify Green Tree of the tax 

sale. Green Tree objected to allowing Gupta to present witness testimony, and 

the trial court ruled that Gupta could not present any witnesses at the hearing. 

Gupta continued to testify and summarize the steps he took in addition to the 

certified notices sent to the Carmel address. He added that, “I have the witness, 

but since the Court is not allowing the witness, . . . that’s probably [a] moot 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1412-MI-543 | September 3, 2015 Page 4 of 6

point. . . .[W]e can also say that this is what we did, we even called Green Tree 

and . . . somebody told them the taxes were not paid.” Id. at 10. At the 

conclusion of the hearing, the trial court issued an order voiding the tax sale. 

Gupta now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] The decision to admit or exclude evidence is within the sound discretion of the 

trial court and will only be reversed upon a manifest abuse of that discretion. 

Ostrowski v. Everest Healthcare Ind., Inc., 956 N.E.2d 1144, 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2011). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is against 

the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. 

[8] Gupta argues that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding his witness 

testimony at the hearing on Green Tree’s motion to void the tax sale. He urges 

that he should have been allowed to present any pertinent evidence regarding 

what additional steps he took to ascertain Green Tree’s address. Gupta 

contends that the hearing was held on Green Tree’s Trial Rule 60(B) motion, 

which made it an evidentiary hearing, and he, therefore, should have been 

given the opportunity to present all pertinent evidence, including his witness 

testimony.

[9] Initially, Green Tree asserts that Gupta has waived his argument on appeal 

because he failed to make an offer of proof to the trial court. It is well settled 

that an offer of proof is required to preserve an error in the exclusion of a 

witness’s testimony. Barnett v. State, 916 N.E.2d 280, 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1412-MI-543 | September 3, 2015 Page 5 of 6

trans. denied. An offer of proof allows the trial and appellate courts to determine 

the admissibility of the testimony and the potential for prejudice if it is 

excluded. Id. 

[10] Here, at the hearing, Gupta stated, “we also prove to the Court and I have a 

witness, live witness, here that we did additional steps. A reasonable 

(inaudible) to inform Green Tree.” Tr. at 8. Gupta additionally stated, “I 

would like to call some witnesses and prove that I did additional steps besides 

sending the notices certified mail.” Id. He further informed the court, “I have 

the witness, but since the Court is not allowing the witness, . . . that’s probably 

[a] moot point. . . .[W]e can also say that this is what we did, we even called 

Green Tree and . . . somebody told them the taxes were not paid.” Id. at 10. 

We conclude that this was sufficient to make an offer of proof as to what the 

excluded witness would testify, which was the additional steps taken by Gupta 

to notify Green Tree. This offer of proof was sufficient to preserve this issue for 

appeal.

[11] Finding that Gupta did not waive his issue for appeal, we now turn to the 

merits of the case. Gupta claims that it was an abuse of discretion to exclude 

his witness’s testimony from the hearing as to whether to void the tax sale. 

Indiana courts have held that if the notice of a tax sale sent by the auditor to the 

landowner pursuant to statute has been returned due to an incorrect or 

insufficient address, due process requires that the auditor take additional steps 

to attempt to determine the landowner’s proper address. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. of 

Grant & Blackford Counties v. M Jewell, LLC, 992 N.E.2d 751, 757 (Ind. Ct. App. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1412-MI-543 | September 3, 2015 Page 6 of 6

2013), trans. denied. Such due process requirements apply to a tax sale 

purchaser as well. Iemma v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 992 N.E.2d 732, 740 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The notice “must be ‘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.’” Id. 

[12] Therefore, Gupta was required to present evidence that he had taken additional 

steps to ascertain Green Tree’s proper address and that he provided sufficient 

notice to Green Tree. Green Tree’s motion to void the tax sale was filed 

pursuant to Trial Rule 60(B)(6). Trial Rule 60(D) states, “In passing upon a 

motion allowed by subdivision (B) of this rule the court shall hear any pertinent 

evidence . . . .” Gupta sought to admit testimony from a witness regarding the 

additional steps he took to notify Green Tree of the tax sale. We conclude that 

such evidence was pertinent to the issue before the trial court, and the trial court 

abused its discretion in excluding such evidence. We, therefore, reverse the 

trial court’s order voiding the tax sale and remand for further proceedings.

[13] Reversed and remanded.

Najam, J., and Barnes, J., concur.