Court Opinion

ID: 9897203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:08:34.845052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:25.221713
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                      Oct 11 2023, 1:24 pm

                                                                          CLERK
                                                                      Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                         Court of Appeals
                          IN THE                                           and Tax Court

  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.
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 2 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

1Typically, 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 first-
class 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 10 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 first-
class 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 11 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

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