Court Opinion

ID: 9645043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:11:16.91014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:22.393054
License: Public Domain

*887BLACKMAR, Judge,
concurring.
This case is controlled by Memonite Board of Missions v. Adams, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983). There is no basis for distinguishing the conventional mortgage, which was employed in that case, from the deed of trust, which is customarily used in Missouri real estate transactions. Indiana, like Missouri, holds that one who lends on the security of real estate acquires only a lien, and not the legal title which is purportedly transferred.
The names of defendants-respondents Thomas J. Powers, trustee and of Pioneer Bank and Trust Company, cestui que trust (lender) were available in the office of the recorder of deeds. The trial court, in granting summary judgment in their favor, found that their addresses were “easily ascertainable,” and the appellant does not dispute this finding. The tax sale proceedings, then, were not sufficient to cut off their interests, in the absence of some notice other than by publication, and the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree quieting title, which is the only relief sought. The judgment, therefore, must be affirmed.
Because Memonite Board shows with certainty that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought it is appropriate to deviate from the normal rule that non-constitutional issues be considered first. It is not necessary to consider the reasons adduced by Judge Houser for affirmance.
To say that Memonite Board poses problems is to speak mildly. The legislature may have to take action. Because of the far-reaching implications of this change from the law as previously understood it is appropriate to mention two readily apparent problems, as follows:
(1) Must the appropriate notice be given to the trustee, or to the cestui, or to both? Prudent lawyers, no doubt, would inquire as to the addresses of both, at least until further light appears. The record, of course, does not show whether the named cestui still holds the note secured by deed of trust. The trustee is usually a passive party, often named without being specifically advised of the particular transaction, and the value of notice to him or her is problematical. Yet these names are the only ones available in the public records.
(2) What rights and remedies do persons in the position of this plaintiff have for the money they have paid into the public treasury on account of delinquent taxes, and what are • their priorities with respect to secured lenders?
Neither of the questions just posed was involved in the prior proceedings of this case, or considered in Memonite Board. Nothing remains but to affirm the present judgment.