Court Opinion

ID: 9530466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:00:05.505678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:07.317333
License: Public Domain

MAY, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority characterizes the question before us as "whether the alternative address written on a return receipt postcard by an unknown party is sufficient to supply inquiry notice of a change of address to the Auditor ...." (Op. at 589-40). Unlike the majority, I would answer that question in the affirmative. I accordingly dissent.
Specifically, I respectfully disagree with the majority's decision to the extent it suggests, for tax sale notification purposes, an auditor is obliged to take into account a new address indicated on returned mail but is not similarly obliged to take into account a new address indicated on a return. receipt card. I do not believe our prior decisions, particularly McBain, permit that distinction.
In 1995, the McBains purchased real estate in Carmel, Indiana, then during the first half of 1996, they moved to Tennessee. They became delinquent on their property taxes for the Carmel property and the county auditor sent them a Notice of Tax Sale. The auditor sent the notice by certified mail to the Carmel address, and it was returned by the post office with a notation indicating an order to forward the McBains' mail to their new Tennessee address had expired. The auditor did not send notice to the Tennessee address, believing its obligation to notify the McBains *546of the anticipated tax sale had been discharged.
We disagreed, holding the auditor's notice did not meet the Mullane or Elizondo requirements. When the auditor's notice was returned with a more recent Tennessee address, that address became the McBains' "last known address." 744 N.E.2d at 989. It was unquestionably linked to the McBains and to the property in question by virtue of its location on the returned envelope containing the original notice. Id. We held "Under Hlizondo, an Auditor may not disregard such information, and must send notice of the tax sale proceedings to the property owner at that subsequently discovered alternate address." Id. By declining to re-mail the notice to the Tennessee address, the auditor deprived the MceBains of notice "reasonably calculated under all the cireum-stances to apprise them of the pendency of the tax sale" and to afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Id.
Similarly, in the case before us the Auditor had an alternative address she was obliged to use because, under the McBain standard, it was U.S. Bank's "last known address." As we stated in McBain, "an Auditor may not disregard such [new address] information[.]" Id. at 989.
In addition, in Reeder Associates II v. Chicago Belle, Ltd., 778 N.E.2d 828, 834 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied 792 N.E.2d 42 (Ind.2003), an auditor relied on a title report for a name and address rather than referring to its own files, which contained the proper name and address. We held that "[the county auditor is deemed to be aware of the contents of the records maintained in its office." Id. Here, the proper address was contained in the auditor's files.
I am aware that Lincoln and its successors failed to update the name and address in the auditor's files. However, based on McBain and Reeder, I believe the auditor's failure to review its files requires an affir-mance of the trial court's ruling.