Petition for Writ of Certiorari — James A. Crowe, et ux., Petitioners v. Savvy IN, LLC

APPENDIX

i

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A Indiana Supreme Court Denial of

Petition for Rehearing

(January 11, 2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 1

Appendix B Indiana Supreme Court Opinion

(October 11, 2023) . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 2

Appendix C Indiana Supreme Court Order

Granting Transfer (Table)

(April 6, 2023) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 17

Appendix D Indiana Court of Appeals Opinion

(November 30, 2022) . . . . . . . . . . App. 18

Appendix E Madison Circuit Court Order Denying

Motion to Set Aside Deeds

(April 22, 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 32

Appendix F Constitutional and Statutory

Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 34

U.S. Const. amend. V . . . . . . . . . App. 34

U.S. Const. amend. XIV . . . . . . . App. 34

Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.5 . . . . . . . App. 35

Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.6 . . . . . . . App. 39

Appendix G Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.5 Returned

First Class Mail and Return Mail

Receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 45

Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.6 Returned

First Class Mail and Return Mail

Receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 47

ii

Appendix H USPS Covid Policy Change

(03/20/2020). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 49

Appendix I USPS Statement on COVID-19

Signatures

(04/02/2020). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 52

Appendix J USPS Customer Signature Service

Industry Alert Rescinded

(05/06/2022). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 57

Appendix K Verified Petition for Order Directing

Auditor to Issue Tax Deed

(12/07/2021). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 59

Supplement to Verified Petition for

Order Directing Auditor to Issue Tax

Deed

(01/17/2022). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. 65

App. 1

APPENDIX A

IN THE

INDIANA SUPREME COURT

Supreme Court Case No. 23S-TP-00090

Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-TP-01113

Trial Court Case No. 48C03-2112-TP-000757

[Filed January 11, 2024]

_______________________________________

In re the 2020 Madison County Tax Sale )

)

James A. Crowe, et al.,

)

Appellants,

)

)

v.

)

)

Savvy IN, LLC,

)

Appellee.

)

______________________________________ )

Order

Appellants’ Petition for Rehearing is hereby

DENIED.

Done at Indianapolis, Indiana, on 1/11/2024 .

/s/ Loretta H. Rush

Loretta H. Rush

Chief Justice of Indiana

All Justices concur.

App. 2

APPENDIX B

[SEAL]

IN THE

INDIANA SUPREME COURT

Supreme Court Case No. 23S-TP-00090

[Filed October 11, 2023]

__________________________________________

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

App. 3

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-

App. 4

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 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

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

App. 5

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 Crowes testified they did not receive any

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.

App. 6

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.

App. 7

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.

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

App. 8

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.

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

App. 9

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,

App. 10

Sawmill Creek purchased property, but documents

listed the 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.

App. 11

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 firstclass 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 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

App. 12

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 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

App. 13

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

App. 14

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

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. § 6-1.1-249(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. § 6-1.1-254.5(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

App. 15

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. § 6-1.125-4.6.

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. §§ 6-1.1-254.5, -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 firstclass mail. The redemption period came 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,

App. 16

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.

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

App. 17

APPENDIX C

Crowe v. Savvy IN, LLC, 208 N.E.3d 1246 (Table)

(2023)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.

Cause Number 22A-TP-1113

[Filed April 6, 2023]

208 N.E.3d 1246 (Table)

(This disposition is referenced in the

North Eastern Reporter.)

James A. CROWE, et al.

v.

SAVVY IN, LLC, Appellee

April 6, 2023

Cause Number 22A-TP-1113

Brown, J., Altice, J., Tavitas, J.

Opinion

Granted - 23S-TP-90 4/6/23

All Citations

208 N.E.3d 1246 (Table)

App. 18

APPENDIX D

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-TP-1113

[Filed November 30, 2022]

______________________________

In Re the 2020 Madison County )

Tax Sale

)

James A. Crowe and

)

Phyllis Lynn Crowe,

)

Appellants,

)

)

v.

)

)

Savvy IN, LLC,

)

Appellee.

)

_____________________________ )

Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court

The Honorable Andrew R. Hopper, Judge

Christopher A. Cage, Master Commissioner

Trial Court Cause Nos. 48C03-2112-TP-757

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Ralph E. Sipes

Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Lewis Maudlin

Bedford, Indiana

App. 19

Thomas C. Buchanan

Buchanan & Bruggenschmidt, P.C.

Zionsville, Indiana

Brown, Judge.

[1]

Dr. James A. Crowe and Phyllis Lynn Crowe

appeal the denial of their motion for relief from

judgment following the trial court’s order to

issue tax deeds. We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[2]

1

The Crowes acquired three parcels of real

property consisting of approximately eighty-two

acres in Madison County by warranty deed in

1997, built a home on the property, and have

resided there since 1998. The property’s fair

market value is approximately $2.1 million. On

October 5, 2020, Savvy IN, LLC, (“Savvy”)

purchased the parcels at a tax sale for

$394,994.1 On December 7, 2021, Savvy filed

petitions for orders directing the issuance of tax

deeds. The petitions stated that Savvy mailed

notice of the tax sale to the Crowes pursuant to

Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.5 by certified mail, return

receipt requested, on or about February 10,

2021, a copy of the return receipt was attached,

it mailed notice of the filing of the petition for a

tax deed to the Crowes pursuant to Ind. Code

§ 6-1.1-25-4.6 by certified mail, return receipt

requested, dated December 7, 2021, a copy of the

The tax sale certificates state the parcels were sold for $52,222,

$250,000, and $92,772.

App. 20

certified mail return receipt would be filed as a

supplement, and it “sent notice of information

contained in” Ind. Code §§ 6-1.1-25-4.5 and -4.6

to the Crowes “via regular mail.” Appellants’

Appendix Volume II at 9-10; Appellee’s

Appendix Volume II at 13-14, 25-26. The

certified mail return receipts attached to Savvy’s

filings were not signed by the Crowes.2 In

January 2022, the court ordered the Madison

County Auditor to issue tax deeds for the

parcels, and tax deeds were subsequently issued.

[3]

2

On February 10, 2022, the Crowes requested

relief from judgment pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule

60(B) arguing that they never received notice

from Savvy of the tax sale and the redemption

period expiration date or that Savvy had filed

petitions for tax deeds, the receipts attached to

Savvy’s filings show they did not sign the

receipts, and they first learned the parcels had

A copy of a green “certified mail receipt” attached to the petition

displays a stamp of February 10, 2021, and an attached return

receipt appears to indicate “2-17” in the field for “Date of Delivery”

and “HHR2C79” in the fields for “Signature” and “Received by

(Printed Name).” Appellants’ Appendix Volume II at 17, 19;

Appellee’s Appendix Volume II at 21, 23, 33, 35. A copy of a green

“certified mail receipt” attached to Savvy’s supplemental filing

displays a stamp of December 8, 2021, and an attached return

receipt appears to indicate “12/13/21” in the field for “Date of

Delivery,” there are horizontal lines through the fields for

“Signature” and “Received by (Printed Name),” and a scribbled

indecipherable word appears in the field for “Is delivery address

different than Item 1? If YES, enter delivery address below.”

Appellants’ Appendix Volume II at 23, 25; Appellee’s Appendix

Volume II at 39, 41, 44, 46.

App. 21

been sold at a tax sale when they received a call

from their home equity lender on February 1,

2022. They argued any tax deed issued with

respect to the parcels was void due to

inadequate notice.

[4]

On April 8, 2022, the court held a hearing. Dr.

Crowe testified as to the property’s fair market

value, that he and his wife built a home on and

lived on the property, and that they had a home

equity loan of approximately $66,000. He

testified that the property had been sold at a tax

sale in 2019, that he and Lynn received notices

that year informing them the property had been

sold and they had a right to redeem the

property, and that, in response, Lynn learned

the amount they owed and they redeemed the

property. He testified, with respect to the

October 5, 2020 tax sale, that they did not

receive any notices from Savvy regarding its

purchase of the property at the tax sale, their

right to redeem the property, or that Savvy had

filed petitions for tax deeds. He testified that he

and Lynn ultimately obtained copies of the

certified mail receipts and his signature did not

appear on the receipts. He testified that, if they

had received the notices, they would have paid

the amount required to redeem the property as

they had done previously and that they were

ready, willing, and able to pay that amount.

[5]

Dr. Crowe further indicated they had trouble

receiving mail at their home, his Medicare

insurance had been terminated because there

App. 22

were two consecutive quarters for which they did

not receive a bill and did not pay, their mailbox

had been vandalized on multiple occasions, and

their mailbox was approximately three-eighths

of a mile from their front door. When asked

whether they receive certified mail, return

receipt requested, at their residence, he replied

affirmatively, and when asked the last time that

occurred, he testified “when we got the

notification for the prior tax sale” and that, at

that time, the mail carrier drove up their lane to

deliver it to their house and obtain their

signature. Transcript Volume II at 18. When

asked “[d]id anyone from any mail carrier bring

to you, to your door in 2020 or 2021 any certified

mail return receipt requested to your door,” he

answered “[n]o.” Id. at 18-19. When asked “[d]id

any mail carrier come to your door and knock on

your door during that period 2020, 2021,” he

answered “[n]o,” and when asked “did any mail

carrier come to identify you as the recipient of

the returned receipt requested mail,” he again

answered “[n]o.” Id. at 19. When asked “you did

not receive any of these notices,” he answered

“[t]hat’s correct.” Id. On cross-examination,

when asked if the issues with his mail occurred

over the prior twenty-three years, he answered

affirmatively and that “specifically the issues . . .

with my social security and this specific issue

was in the last probably two (2) years.” Id.

[6]

Lynn Crowe testified that, when the property

was sold in 2019, she went to the Auditor’s

office, found out how much money they owed,

App. 23

went to the bank to obtain the funds, and

returned to the Auditor’s office and paid the

amount. When asked “[d]id you understand that

was going to bring all of your taxes current and

not just pay for the redemption amount,” she

testified: “That was my understanding.” Id. at

25-26. She similarly testified that they did not

receive any notices with respect to the 2020 tax

sale. When asked “did any mail carrier drive up

your lane and knock on your door and talk to

you,” she replied “[n]o,” and when asked “[did]

any mail carrier identify you and then sign this

receipt for you and then tell you he was doing

it,” she replied “[n]ot that I’m aware of.” Id. at

26. She indicated she has previously received

certified mail returned receipt requested at her

door, and when asked “[b]ut nothing for this tax

sale,” she answered “[t]hat’s correct.” Id. She

testified that her signature did not appear on

any of the certified mail receipts.

[7]

When asked if she had anything to add

regarding their trouble receiving mail or their

mailbox, Lynn testified “[w]ell, we did have [a]

medical bill from Riverview [H]ospital that we

never got but that was all in the same time

period when all of this was going on.” Id. at 29.

She indicated that no one from the post office

knocked on their door to deliver mail to them

during 2020 or 2021 and that no one from the

post office came to their door to identify them

before delivering mail. When asked “when you

had gotten your cashier’s check and you pay the

Auditor . . . you thought you had paid your 2019

App. 24

taxes too,” Lynn answered “[y]es, I did.” Id. at

30. When asked “[s]o you weren’t expecting any

notices from the Auditor about a tax sale,” she

testified: “No. I had asked them if we where [sic]

everything was all paid up, all our property

taxes had been paid, I was told yes. And I

understood that we were all, we didn’t owe

anymore property taxes and we didn’t get any

statements, any property tax statements that

year.” Id.

[8]

Counsel for the Crowes asked the court to

exercise equity in this case and argued “the

method used by the mail carrier has reduced the

requirements of our tax sale statu[t]es from

certified mail return receipt requested notice [to]

nothing more than ordinary mail” and “[i]f [a]

carrier never receipts the taxpayer, owner,

never talks to them, doesn’t get their

signature, doesn’t identify them, and then

signs a name and a number that is not due

process.” Id. at 37. The Crowes introduced a

“COVID-19 Continuity of Operations Update” by

the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) dated

March 20, 2020, the court asked the Crowes’

counsel to e-file the exhibit and gave Savvy’s

counsel until noon on April 11, 2022, to make

any objection, and the chronological case

summary shows the Crowes filed the exhibit and

Savvy’s counsel did not file an objection.

Appellants’ Appendix Volume II at 58. On

April 22, 2022, the court denied the Crowes’

motion for relief from judgment.

App. 25

Discussion

[9]

The Crowes argue that the Indiana Supreme

Court recognized the public health emergency

relating to the coronavirus in an emergency

order, USPS altered its signature requirement

for certified mail, return receipt requested, in

response to the virus, and the mail carrier did

not follow the modified customer signature

procedure required by USPS. They also argue

that, because Lynn received information from

the Auditor’s office which led her to believe that

all of the outstanding property taxes had been

paid, they did not expect to receive further tax

notices. They maintain that, under these

circumstances, equity must prevent the injustice

of losing their home and request thirty days to

redeem their property. Savvy asserts that its

notices “were signed for” and “[i]t is irrelevant

who signed for these certified notices.”

Appellee’s Brief at 17-18. It contends it also

mailed the notices to the Crowes by first-class

mail and argues that USPS’s altered signature

requirements for certified mail did not deprive

the Crowes of due process.

[10]

Ind. Trial Rule 60(B) provides in part that, “[o]n

motion and upon such terms as are just the

court may relieve a party . . . from a judgment

. . . for the following reasons: . . . (6) the

judgment is void . . . ,” or “(8) any reason

justifying relief from the operation of the

judgment, other than those reasons set forth in

subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4).” A movant

App. 26

filing a motion for reason (8) must allege a

meritorious claim or defense. A motion made

under Rule 60(B) is addressed to the equitable

discretion of the trial court. Deutsche Bank Nat.

Tr. Co. v. Harris, 985 N.E.2d 804, 813 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2013). We generally review a court’s ruling

on a motion for relief from judgment for an

abuse of discretion. Id. To the extent a motion

for relief from judgment alleges a judgment is

void, “discretion on the part of the trial court is

not employed because either the judgment is

void or it is valid.” See id. (citation omitted); see

also Cruz v. Cruz, 186 N.E.3d 152, 154 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2022) (our review of a ruling on a motion

under Rule 60(B)(6) is de novo).

[11]

Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.5 provides that a

purchaser is entitled to a tax deed only if the

purchaser gives notice of the sale to the owner of

record at the time of the sale and any person

with a substantial property interest of public

record in the real property. The notice must be

sent “by certified mail, return receipt requested,”

to the property owner at the owner’s last address

as indicated in the records of the county auditor.

Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.5. “Certified mail” is

generally defined as “Mail for which the sender

requests proof of delivery in the form of a receipt

signed by the addressee” and “The receipt (a

green card, which is usu. referred to as such)

must be signed before the mail will be delivered.

— Also termed certified mail, return receipt

Requested.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1096 (10th

ed. 2014). Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.6 provides that

App. 27

a purchaser shall file a petition with the trial

court requesting the court to direct the county

auditor to issue a tax deed if the property was

not redeemed from the sale and that notice of

the filing of the petition shall be given to the

same parties as provided in Ind. Code § 6-1.1-254.5. A person may, upon appeal, defeat the title

conveyed by a tax deed if the notices required by

Ind. Code §§ 6-1.1-25-4.5 and -4.6 were not in

substantial compliance with the manner

prescribed in those sections. Ind. Code § 6-1.125-16. Further, to comply with due process,

while actual notice is not required, a

purchaser must provide notice which is

reasonably calculated under all the

circumstances to inform the interested parties of

the pendency of the action and afford them an

opportunity to present any objections. See Ind.

Land Tr. Co. v. XL Invest. Props., LLC, 155

N.E.3d 1177, 1184 (Ind. 2020); S&C Fin. Grp.,

LLC v. Khan, 172 N.E.3d 280, 288 (Ind. Ct. App.

2021), reh’g denied, trans. denied. See also Tax

Certificate Invs., Inc. v. Smethers, 714 N.E.2d

131, 134 (Ind. 1999) (“Notice is constitutionally

adequate when ‘the practicalities and

peculiarities of the case . . . are reasonably

met.’”) (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank

& Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314-315, 70 S. Ct. 652

(1950)).

[12]

On March 16, 2020, the Indiana Supreme Court

issued an order providing that Governor

Holcomb had declared a public health emergency

in Indiana relating to the 2019 coronavirus,

App. 28

President Trump had declared a national

emergency, and the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention had determined that social

distancing was necessary to minimize further

spread of the virus. See Matter of Admin. Rule

17 Emergency Relief for Indiana Trial Cts.

Relating to 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19),

No. 20S-CB-123, 141 N.E.3d 388 (Ind. March 16,

2020). USPS issued a “COVID-19 Continuity of

Operations Update” in March 2020 providing:

A number of cases of the Coronavirus

Disease 2019 (COVID-19) have recently

been confirmed across the country.

The safety and well-being of our

employees & customers is our highest

priority. To help ensure the health of our

employees & customers, we are

continuing to follow recommended

guidance and strategies from the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

and local health departments, and are

implementing additional measures to

help maintain social distancing.

One significant measure being

implemented is a temporary modification

to mail handling procedures for mail that

requires customer signatures. We

recognize the close proximity and

additional handling that occurs when

employees must ask customers for a

signature and government issued

identification when required. To reduce

App. 29

health risks, we are temporarily

modifying customer signature capture

procedures. Effective immediately and

until further notice, our employees will

follow the temporary process below for

signature service items. This process

applies to all letter carriers:

• Avoid ringing the doorbell when

possible. Knock on the customer’s

door. Avoid areas that may be

frequently touched when knocking.

• While maintaining a safe,

appropriate distance, employees

will request the customer’s first

initial and last name.

• For increased safety, employees

will ask the customer to step back

a safe distance or close the screen

door/door so that they may leave

the item in the mail receptacle or

appropriate location by the

customer door.

• If there is no response, employees

will follow the normal Notice Left

process.

• If there are delivery points on the

route where social distancing

recommendations are difficult to

follow, alternative delivery

methods can be explored.

App. 30

Appellants’ Appendix Volume II at 58. In

addition, the Crowes state that USPS’s website

provided: “It should be understood that our

carriers are not signing for customers, but

instead indicating that they have identified the

customer to whom the item is being delivered.”

Appellants’ Brief at 18; see also Appellee’s Brief

at 21 (stating “[t]he altered policies did not

eliminate the requirement for signature

confirmation; they merely substituted the

carrier as the signatory once the recipient’s

identity and receipt of the mail had been

confirmed”) (citing Appellants’ Brief at 18).

[13]

Here, the Crowes presented testimony that they

did not receive notice regarding their right to

redeem the property following the 2020 tax sale

or Savvy’s request for tax deeds and that their

signatures did not appear on the certified mail

receipts. They further testified that no mail

carrier knocked on their door in 2020 or 2021 or

identified them as recipients of the return

receipt requested mail. We note that the return

receipts do not contain the first initial and last

name of Dr. Crowe or Lynn and that there was

no notation whatsoever relating that a specific

individual received the notices. Thus, it

appears that USPS protocol, requiring that

the postal carrier ask the addressee’s first

initial and last name to confirm receipt by

the proper recipient, was not followed. The

Crowes also testified that they had not received

certain mail at their home during the prior two

years, they would have redeemed the

App. 31

property if they had received the notices as

they had done previously, and they were not

expecting any notices because they

believed the taxes had been paid and made

current when Lynn visited the Auditor and

they did not receive any property tax

statements. We also note Dr. Crowe’s testimony

that the property, which was their residence

since 1998, had a fair market value of

approximately $2.1 million and the only debt

was a home equity loan of approximately

$66,000, and the tax sale certificates indicate

the parcels sold for $1.7 million less at $394,994.

[14]

Under these circumstances, equity and due

process require that we reverse the denial of

the Crowes’ motion for relief from judgment and

remand to provide them with thirty days to

redeem the parcels.

[15]

Reversed and remanded.

Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

App. 32

APPENDIX E

IN THE MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

DIV. III 2022 TERM

CAUSE NO.

48C03-2112-TP-000757

48C03-2112-TP-000758

48C03-2112-TP-000759

[Filed April 22, 2022]

_____________________________________________

STATE OF INDIANA.

)

)

SS:

)

)

COUNTY OF MADISON

)

)

IN THE MATTER OF THE TAX DEED

)

SAVVY IN LLC,

)

Petitioner,

)

)

and

)

)

JAMES CROWE AND PHYLLIS CROWE,

)

Interested parties.

)

____________________________________________ )

ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING ON

REQUEST TO SET ASIDE TAX DEEDS

These matters come before the Court for hearing on

James and Phyllis Crowe’s Request to Set Aside the

App. 33

Court’s previous orders for Issuance of Tax Deeds. The

Court now being duly advised in the premises, issues

the following order.

The Court finds that the evidence establishes by a

preponderance of the evidence that the statutory

procedures and requirements for the issuance of a tax

deed have been met, including notices required by law.

Despite the Crowes’ arguments to the contrary, actual

notice or receipt of notice is not required. Indiana Land

Trust Co. v. XL investment Properties, (Ind.Ct.App.

2020) 155 N.E.3d 1177. Here, the Court is satisfied

that compliance with due process requirements was

followed.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that James and

Phyllis Crowes’ Request to Set Aside Tax Deed is

DENIED.

ALL OF WHICH IS SO ORDERED THIS 4/22/2022

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

/s/ Christopher A. Cage

CHRISTOPHER A. CAGE, MASTER COMMISSIONER

MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, DIV. III

COMES NOW THE COURT AND ENTERS

JUDGMENT ON THE COMMISSIONER’S FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS THIS 4/22/2022

/s/ Andrew Hopper

[SEAL]

HONORABLE ANDREW R. HOPPER, JUDGE

MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, DIV. III

Notice: RJO/Petitioner/Counsel/Treasurer of Madison

County/Assessor of Madison County

App. 34

APPENDIX F

CONSTITUTIONAL AND

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

United States Constitution

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or

otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or

indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in

the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in

actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall

any person be subject for the same offence to be twice

put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in

any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor

be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due

process of law; nor shall private property be taken for

public use, without just compensation.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States,

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of

the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall

abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the

United States; nor shall any State deprive any person

of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection of the laws.

App. 35

Indiana Statutes

Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.5

Sec. 4.5. (a) Except as provided in subsection (d), a

purchaser or the purchaser’s assignee is entitled to a

tax deed to the property that was sold only if:

(1) the redemption period specified in section 4(a)(1) of

this chapter has expired;

(2) the property has not been redeemed within the

period of redemption specified in section 4(a) of this

chapter; and

(3) not later than six (6) months after the date of the

sale:

(A) the purchaser or the purchaser’s assignee; or

(B) in a county where the county auditor and county

treasurer have an agreement under section 4.7 of this

chapter, the county auditor; gives notice of the sale to

the owner of record at the time of the sale and any

person with a substantial property interest of public

record in the tract or item of real property.

(b) A county executive is entitled to a tax deed to

property on which the county executive acquires a lien

under IC 6-1.1-24-6 and for which the certificate of sale

is not sold under IC 6-1.1-24-6.1 only if:

(1) the redemption period specified in section 4(b) of

this chapter has expired;

(2) the property has not been redeemed within the

period of redemption specified in section 4(b) of this

chapter; and

(3) not later than ninety (90) days after the date the

county executive acquires the lien under IC 6-1.1-24-6,

the county auditor gives notice of the sale to:

App. 36

(A) the owner of record at the time the lien was

acquired; and

(B) any person with a substantial property interest of

public record in the tract or item of real property.

(c) A purchaser of a certificate of sale under IC 6-1.124-6.1 is entitled to a tax deed to the property for which

the certificate was sold only if:

(1) the redemption period specified in section 4(c) of

this chapter has expired;

(2) the property has not been redeemed within the

period of redemption specified in section 4(c) of this

chapter; and

(3) not later than ninety (90) days after the date of sale

of the certificate of sale under IC 6-1.1-24, the

purchaser gives notice of the sale to:

(A) the owner of record at the time of the sale; and

(B) any person with a substantial property interest of

public record in the tract or item of real property.

(d) The person required to give the notice under

subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall give the notice by

sending a copy of the notice by certified mail, return

receipt requested, to:

(1) the owner of record at the time of the:

(A) sale of the property;

(B) acquisition of the lien on the property under IC 61.1-24-6; or

(C) sale of the certificate of sale on the property under

IC 6-1.1-24; at the last address of the owner for the

property, as indicated in the records of the county

auditor; and

(2) any person with a substantial property interest of

public record at the address for the person included in

the public record that indicates the interest. However,

if the address of the person with a substantial property

App. 37

interest of public record is not indicated in the public

record that created the interest and cannot be located

by ordinary means by the person required to give the

notice under subsection (a), (b), or (c), the person may

give notice by publication in accordance with IC 5-3-1-4

once each week for three (3) consecutive weeks.

(e) The notice that this section requires shall contain at

least the following:

(1) A statement that a petition for a tax deed will be

filed on or after a specified date.

(2) The date on or after which the petitioner intends to

petition for a tax deed to be issued.

(3) A description of the tract or item of real property

shown on the certificate of sale.

(4) The date the tract or item of real property was sold

at a tax sale.

(5) The name of the:

(A) purchaser or purchaser’s assignee;

(B) county executive that acquired the lien on the

property under IC 6-1.1-24-6; or

(C) person that purchased the certificate of sale on the

property under IC 6-1.1-24.

(6) A statement that any person may redeem the tract

or item of real property.

(7) The components of the amount required to redeem

the tract or item of real property.

(8) A statement that an entity identified in subdivision

(5) is entitled to reimbursement for additional taxes or

special assessments on the tract or item of real

property that were paid by the entity subsequent to the

tax sale, lien acquisition, or purchase of the certificate

of sale, and before redemption, plus interest.

(9) A statement that the tract or item of real property

has not been redeemed.

App. 38

(10) A statement that an entity identified in

subdivision (5) is entitled to receive a deed for the tract

or item of real property if it is not redeemed before the

expiration of the period of redemption specified in

section 4 of this chapter.

(11) A statement that an entity identified in

subdivision (5) is entitled to reimbursement for costs

described in section 2(e) of this chapter.

(12) The date of expiration of the period of redemption

specified in section 4 of this chapter.

(13) A statement that if the property is not redeemed,

the owner of record at the time the tax deed is issued

may have a right to the tax sale surplus, if any.

(14) The street address, if any, or a common description

of the tract or item of real property.

(15) The key number or parcel number of the tract or

item of real property.

(f) The notice under this section must include not more

than one (1) tract or item of real property listed and

sold in one (1) description. However, when more than

one (1) tract or item of real property is owned by one (1)

person, all of the tracts or items of real property that

are owned by that person may be included in one (1)

notice.

(g) A single notice under this section may be used to

notify joint owners of record at the last address of the

joint owners for the property sold, as indicated in the

records of the county auditor.

(h) The notice required by this section is considered

sufficient if the notice is mailed to the address required

under subsection (d).

(i) The notice under this section and the notice under

section 4.6 of this chapter are not required for persons

in possession not shown in the public records.

App. 39

(j) If the purchaser fails to:

(1) comply with subsection (c)(3); or

(2) petition for the issuance of a tax deed within the

time permitted under section 4.6(a) of this chapter; the

certificate of sale reverts to the county executive and

may be retained by the county executive or sold under

IC 6-1.1-24-6.1.

Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.6

Sec. 4.6. (a) After the expiration of the redemption

period specified in section 4 of this chapter but not

later than three (3) months after the expiration of the

period of redemption:

(1) the purchaser, the purchaser’s assignee, the county

executive, the county executive’s assignee, or the

purchaser of the certificate of sale under IC 6-1.1-246.1 may; or

(2) in a county where the county auditor and county

treasurer have an agreement under section 4.7 of this

chapter, the county auditor shall, upon the request of

the purchaser or the purchaser’s assignee; file a

verified petition in accordance with subsection (b) in

the same court in which the judgment of sale was

entered asking the court to direct the county auditor to

issue a tax deed if the real property is not redeemed

from the sale. Notice of the filing of this petition shall

be given to the same parties as provided in section 4.5

of this chapter, except that, if notice is given by

publication, only one (1) publication is required. The

notice required by this section is considered sufficient

if the notice is sent to the address required by section

4.5(d) of this chapter. Any person owning or having an

App. 40

interest in the tract or item of real property may file a

written objection to the petition with the court not later

than thirty (30) days after the date the petition was

filed. If a written objection is timely filed, the court

shall conduct a hearing on the objection. If there is not

a written objection that is timely filed, the court may

consider the petition without conducting a hearing.

(b) Unless the county auditor and the county treasurer

have entered into an agreement under section 4.7 of

this chapter, a verified petition filed under subsection

(a) may include the following:

(1) Copies of all notices sent under section 4.5 of this

chapter.

(2) Copies of all notices sent under this section.

(3) Copies of all certified mail mailing receipts, return

receipts, and returned mailing envelopes for notices

sent under section 4.5 of this chapter.

(4) Copies of all certified mail mailing receipts, return

receipts, and returned mailing envelopes for notices

sent under this section.

(5) Copies or descriptions of the evidence used by the

petitioner or the petitioner’s assignor to identify the

owner and other persons with a substantial property

interest of public record in the real property.

(c) If the purchaser or the purchaser’s assignee includes

the documents described in subsection (b), the issuance

of a tax deed constitutes prima facie evidence of the

sale referenced in subsection (k).

(d) If a verified petition is brought by the county

auditor under an agreement provided for under section

4.7 of this chapter, a tax deed constitutes prima facie

evidence of the validity of the sale referenced in

subsection (k) upon timely production by the county of

App. 41

all documents described in subsection (b) in response to

a challenge to a tax deed.

(e) If the issuance of a tax deed does not constitute

prima facie evidence of the validity of the sale due to

the failure to comply with this section, the purchaser or

the purchaser’s successor has the burden of proving the

validity of the sale by a preponderance of the evidence

in any subsequent challenge to the sale.

(f) Not later than sixty-one (61) days after the petition

is filed under subsection (a), the court shall enter an

order directing the county auditor (on the production of

the certificate of sale and a copy of the order) to issue

to the petitioner a tax deed if the court finds that the

following conditions exist:

(1) The time of redemption has expired.

(2) The tract or item of real property has not been

redeemed from the sale before the expiration of the

period of redemption specified in section 4 of this

chapter.

(3) Except with respect to a petition for the issuance of

a tax deed under a sale of the certificate of sale on the

property under IC 6-1.1-24-6.1 or IC 6-1.1-24-6.8, or

with respect to penalties described in section 4(j) of this

chapter, all taxes and special assessments, penalties,

and costs have been paid.

(4) The notices required by this section and section 4.5

of this chapter have been given.

(5) The petitioner has complied with all the provisions

of law entitling the petitioner to a deed.

The county auditor shall execute deeds issued under

this subsection in the name of the state under the

county auditor’s name. If a certificate of sale is lost

before the execution of a deed, the county auditor shall

App. 42

issue a replacement certificate if the county auditor is

satisfied that the original certificate existed.

(g) Upon application by the grantee of a valid tax deed

in the same court in which the judgment of sale was

entered, the court shall enter an order to place the

grantee of a valid tax deed in possession of the real

estate. The court may enter any orders and grant any

relief that is necessary or desirable to place or maintain

the grantee of a valid tax deed in possession of the real

estate.

(h) Except as provided in subsections (i) and (j), if:

(1) the verified petition referred to in subsection (a) is

timely filed; and

(2) the court refuses to enter an order directing the

county auditor to execute and deliver the tax deed

because of the failure of the petitioner under subsection

(a) to fulfill the notice requirement of subsection (a);

the court shall order the return of the amount, if any,

by which the purchase price exceeds the minimum bid

on the property under IC 6-1.1-24-5 minus a penalty of

twenty-five percent (25%) of that excess. The petitioner

is prohibited from participating in any manner in the

next succeeding tax sale in the county under IC 6-1.124. The county auditor shall deposit penalties paid

under this subsection in the county general fund.

(i) Notwithstanding subsection (h), in all cases in

which:

(1) the verified petition referred to in subsection (a) is

timely filed;

(2) the petitioner under subsection (a) has made a bona

fide attempt to comply with the statutory requirements

under subsection (f) for the issuance of the tax deed but

has failed to comply with these requirements;

App. 43

(3) the court refuses to enter an order directing the

county auditor to execute and deliver the tax deed

because of the failure to comply with these

requirements; and

(4) the purchaser, the purchaser’s successors or

assignees, or the purchaser of the certificate of sale

under IC 6-1.1-24 files a claim with the county auditor

for refund not later than thirty (30) days after the

entry of the order of the court refusing to direct the

county auditor to execute and deliver the tax deed; the

county auditor shall not execute the deed but shall

refund the purchase money minus a penalty of twentyfive percent (25%) of the purchase money from the

county treasury to the purchaser, the purchaser’s

successors or assignees, or the purchaser of the

certificate of sale under IC 6-1.1-24. The county auditor

shall deposit penalties paid under this subsection in

the county general fund. All the delinquent taxes and

special assessments shall then be reinstated and

recharged to the tax duplicate and collected in the

same manner as if the property had not been offered

for sale. The tract or item of real property, if it is then

eligible for sale under IC 6-1.1-24, shall be placed on

the delinquent list as an initial offering under IC 6-1.124.

(j) Notwithstanding subsections (h) and (i), the court

shall not order the return of the purchase price or any

part of the purchase price if:

(1) the purchaser or the purchaser of the certificate of

sale under IC 6-1.1-24 has failed to provide notice or

has provided insufficient notice as required by section

4.5 of this chapter; and

(2) the sale is otherwise valid.

App. 44

(k) A tax deed executed under this section vests in the

grantee an estate in fee simple absolute, free and clear

of all liens and encumbrances created or suffered before

or after the tax sale except those liens granted priority

under federal law, and the lien of the state or a

political subdivision for taxes and special assessments

that accrue subsequent to the sale. However, the estate

is subject to all easements, covenants, declarations, and

other deed restrictions and laws governing land use,

including all zoning restrictions and liens and

encumbrances created or suffered by the purchaser at

the tax sale. Except as provided in subsections (b), (c),

(d), and (e), the deed is prima facie evidence of:

(1) the regularity of the sale of the real property

described in the deed;

(2) the regularity of all proper proceedings; and

(3) valid title in fee simple in the grantee of the deed.

(l) A tax deed issued under this section is incontestable

except by appeal from the order of the court directing

the county auditor to issue the tax deed filed not later

than sixty (60) days after the date of the court’s order.

App. 45

APPENDIX G

Returned First Class Mail and

Return Mail Receipts

Appellants’ Appendix, Vol. II of II, page 24

App. 46

Appellants’ Appendix, Vol. II of II, page 25

App. 47

Returned First Class Mail and

Return Mail Receipts

Appellants’ Appendix, Vol. II of II, page 18

App. 48

Appellants’ Appendix, Vol. II of II, page 19

App. 49

APPENDIX H

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

INDUSTRY ALERT

March 20, 2020

COVID-19 CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS

UPDATE

Customer Signature Service

COVID-19 Response and Prevention

A number of cases of the Coronavirus Disease 2019

(COVID-19) have recently been confirmed across the

country.

The safety and well-being of our employees &

customers is our highest priority. To help ensure the

health of our employees & customers, we are

continuing to follow recommended guidance and

strategies from the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) and local health departments, and

are implementing additional measures to help

maintain social distancing.

One significant measure being implemented is a

temporary modification to mail handling procedures for

mail that requires customer signatures. We recognize

the close proximity and additional handling that occurs

when employees must ask customers for a signature

and government issued identification when required.

To reduce health risks, we are temporarily modifying

App. 50

customer signature capture procedures. Effective

immediately and until further notice, our employees

will follow the temporary process below for signature

service items. This process applies to all letter carriers:

• Avoid ringing the doorbell when possible. Knock

on the customer’ door. Avoid areas that may be

frequently touched when knocking.

• While maintaining a safe, appropriate distance,

employees will request the customer’ first initial

and last name.

• For increased safety, employees will ask the

customer to step back a safe distance or close the

screen door/door so that they may leave the item

in the mail receptacle or appropriate location by

the customer door.

• If there is no response, employees will follow the

normal Notice Left process.

• If there are delivery points on the route where

social distancing recommendations are difficult

to follow, alternative delivery methods can be

explored.

Industry and commercial customers can email

questions or concerns about COVID-19 and the mail to

industryfeedback@usps.gov with COVID-19 in the

subject line. Mailers can also sign up for Industry

Alerts at industryalert@usps.gov.

For more information, see the USPS Coronavirus

Statement at about.usps.com/newsroom.

App. 51

###

Please visit us on the USPS Industry Outreach website.

Thank you for your support of the United States

Postal Service.

Industry Engagement & Outreach/USPS Marketing

To subscribe or unsubscribe to Industry Alerts, please

hit reply and send us your request.

Privacy Notice: For information regarding our

privacy policies, visit www.usps.com/privacypolicy

App. 52

APPENDIX I

About

Newsroom

Statements

__________________________________________________

Media Statement –COVID-19

April 2, 2020

__________________________________________________

The United States Postal Service is proud of the work

our more than 600,000 employees play in processing,

transporting, and delivering mail and packages for the

American public. We provide a vital public service that

is a part of this nation’ critical infrastructure. The

Postal Service has a dedicated Coronavirus Disease

2019 (COVID-19) Command Response leadership team

that is focusing on employee and customer safety in

conjunction with operational and business continuity

during this unprecedented epidemic. We continue to

follow the strategies and measures recommended by

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

and public health departments. The CDC has

information available on its website at

https://www.coronavirus.gov that provides the latest

information about COVID-19.

To reduce health risks for our employees and customers

and to safeguard our operational and business

continuity, the Postal Service is doing the following:

App. 53

• Ensuring millions of masks, gloves and cleaning

and sanitizing product are available and distributed

to more than 30,000 locations every day through our

Postal Service supply chain. We also have opened

up local purchasing authorities and sourcing

options so that our employees can access additional

supplies within the communities they serve. We

have expanded our national sourcing of supplies

and services to ensure that increasing demands are

met.

• Reinforcing workplace behaviors to ensure that

contact among our employees and with our

customers reflects the best guidance regarding

healthy interactions, social distancing, and risk

minimization. We have implemented measures at

retail facilities and mail processing facilities to

ensure appropriate social distancing, including

through signage, floor tape, and “cough/sneeze”

barriers. We have changed delivery procedures to

eliminate the requirement that customers sign our

Mobile Delivery Devices for delivery. For increased

safety, employees will politely ask the customer to

step back a safe distance or close the screen

door/door so that they may leave the item in the

mail receptacle or appropriate location by the

customer door.

• Updated our cleaning policies to ensure that all

cleaning occurs in a manner consistent with CDC

guidance relating to this pandemic.

• Updated our leave policies to allow liberal use of

leave and to therefore give our employees the ability

to stay home whenever they feel sick, must provide

App. 54

dependent care, or any other qualifying factor under

the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. We

have entered into agreements with our unions to

provide 80 hours of paid leave to non-career

employees for issues related to COVID-19, and have

expanded the definition of sick leave for dependent

care for covered employees to deal with the closures

of primary and secondary schools across the

country.

• Expanded the use of telework for those employees

who are able to perform their jobs remotely.

• Issuing a daily cadence of employee talks, articles,

videos, and other communications to ensure

employees have the latest information and

guidance.

• Leveraging localized continuity of operations plans

that can be employed in the case of emergencies to

help ensure that the nation’s postal system

continues to function for the American people. With

a longstanding history of quickly adapting its

operational plans to changing conditions, the Postal

Service maintains steady communications with

mailers during natural disasters or other events

that require emergency responses and advises

residential customers and business mailers with

regard to postal facility disruptions that may

impact delivery in an affected area via its USPS

Service Alerts webpage at: https://about.usps.com/

newsroom/service-alerts/.

The Postal Service delivers much needed medications

and Social Security checks, and we are the leading

App. 55

delivery service for online purchases. The Postal

Service is an essential service for purposes of

compliance with state or municipality shelter-in-place

orders or other social distancing restrictions. The

statute that created the Postal Service begins with the

following sentence: “The United States Postal Service

shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service

provided to the people by the Government of the United

States, authorized by the Constitution, created by an

Act of Congress, and supported by the people.” 39

U.S.C. §101(a).

Importantly, the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/

coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html), the World Health

Organization (https://www.who.int/news-room/

q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses), as well as the Surgeon

General have indicated that there is currently no

evidence that COVID-19 is being spread through the

mail.

Specifically, according to the World Health

Organization, “The likelihood of an infected person

contaminating commercial goods is low and the risk of

catching the virus that causes COVID-19 from a

package that has been moved, travelled, and been

exposed to different conditions and temperature is also

low.” And according to the CDC, “in general, because of

poor survivability of these coronaviruses on surfaces,

there is likely very low risk of spread from products or

packaging that are shipped over a period of days or

weeks at ambient temperatures. Coronaviruses are

generally thought to be spread most often by

respiratory droplets.” Currently there is no evidence to

support transmission of COVID-19 associated with

App. 56

imported goods and there have not been any cases of

COVID-19 in the United States associated with

imported goods.”

Copyright© 2020 United States Postal Service

App. 57

APPENDIX J

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

INDUSTRY ALERT

May 6, 2022

Customer Signature Service

This Industry Alert supersedes the March 20, 2020,

Industry Alert on the customer signature capture

process. At that time, many interim measures were

taken to reduce health risks during the COVID-19

pandemic. The change in our customer signature

capture procedures was implemented on March 19,

2020.

Effective March 31, 2022, this temporary

modification to our procedures was rescinded, and all

USPS® delivery personnel must capture customers’

signatures for special services mail requiring a

signature. Customers must sign and accept all special

services mail if a signature is required. Agents for

businesses and residents can sign unless delivery is

restricted to the named recipient. USPS employees can

no longer perform the customer signature capture

function for the recipient.

##

Please visit us on the USPS Industry Outreach/

USPS Corporate Affairs website.

Thank you for your support of the United States

App. 58

Postal Service.

Industry Engagement & Outreach/USPS Corporate

Affairs

To subscribe or unsubscribe to Industry Alerts, please

hit reply and send us your request. Or mail your

request to:

Attn: Industry Engagement & Outreach

475 L’Enfant Plaza, RM 4411

Washington DC 20260

Privacy Notice: For information regarding our

privacy policies, visit www.usps.com/privacypolicy

##

Please visit us on the USPS Industry Outreach/

USPS Corporate Affairs website.

Thank you for your support of the United States

Postal Service.

Industry Engagement & Outreach/USPS Corporate

Affairs

To subscribe or unsubscribe to Industry Alerts, please

hit reply and send us your request. Or mail your

request to:

Attn: Industry Engagement & Outreach

475 L’Enfant Plaza, RM 4411

Washington DC 20260

Privacy Notice: For information regarding our

privacy policies, visit www.usps.com/privacypolicy

App. 59

APPENDIX K

Filed: 12/7/2021 1:42 PM

Clerk

Madison County, Indiana

48C03-2112-TP-000757

Madison Circuit Court 3

STATE OF INDIANA

)

) SS:

COUNTY OF MADISON )

IN THE MADISON CIRCUIT COURT

CAUSE NO.

PARCEL NUMBER 48-07-30-100-003.000-029

TAX SALE CERTIFICATE 482002411

IN RE: PETITION OF SAVVY IN LLC FOR TAX

DEED

VERIFIED PETITION FOR ORDER DIRECTING

AUDITOR TO ISSUE TAX DEED

Comes now, SAVVY IN LLC, by counsel, and being

duly sworn upon his oath in support of this petition

alleges and says:

1.

That this petition is filed electronically or by

mail on 12/7/2021 and is being filed pursuant to

I.C. 6-1.1-25-4.6. The Notice of its filing is being

sent to interested parties on or about 12/7/2021

by certified mail.

App. 60

2.

That SAVVY IN LLC is the purchaser of a

Certificate of Sale No. 482002411 (Exhibit-A)

issued pursuant to Indiana Code 6-1.1-24-9 to

SAVVY IN LLC on 10/5/2020 for “NW NE 30-208 00017.462A” better described as follows:

Parcel No. 48-07-30-100-003.000-029

SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT- 1

3.

That the time of redemption expired on

10/5/2021 and the filing of this petition is after

the expiration of the period for redemption as

required by statute and within 3 months of the

expiration of the period for redemption.

4.

That the real property has not been redeemed

from the sale.

5.

That all taxes and special assessments,

penalties and costs have been paid.

6.

That the notices required by law have been

given as follows:

a. Your petitioner through attorney has mailed

notice of the tax sale pursuant to I.C.6-1.125-4.5, upon the owner of record and other

persons with a substantial interest of public

record by certified mail return receipt

requested on or about 2/10/2021 as shown on

the attached certified mail forms within six

(6) months of the date of the tax sale. A copy

of the said notice of the tax sale, the certified

mail return receipts and returned envelopes

are attached to this petition. (Exhibit-B)

App. 61

b. Your petitioner through attorney also sent

notice of information contained in I.C. 6-1.125-4.5 via regular mail to the owner of record

and other persons with a substantial interest

of public record.

c. Your petitioner through attorney has mailed

a copy of the notice of filing this petition

pursuant to I.C. 6-1.1-25-4.6 upon the owner

of record on the date of the tax sale and other

persons with a substantial interest of public

record by certified mail return receipt

requested dated 12/7/2021. A copy of the

certified mail receipts and any return

receipts will be filed to supplement this

petition.

d. Your petitioner through their attorney also

sent notice of information contained in I.C.

6-1.1-25-4.6 via regular mail

contemporaneously with the certified

mailing.

e. Petitioner’s attorney relied on the attached

title search to identify the owner and others

persons with a substantial property interest

of public record in the real property. (ExhibitC)

f. Petitioner’s attorney also used www.whitepages

.com to verify the addresses of any

individuals appearing with an interest in the

property if any mailings were returned.

g. Petitioner’s attorney also searched the

Indiana Secretary of State for any

App. 62

corporations appearing with an interest in

the property if any mailings were returned.

h. Petitioner’s attorney also used the National

Information Center containing information

collected by the Federal Reserve System to

locate any financial institutions appearing

with an interest in the property if any

mailings were returned.

7.

That the petitioner has complied with all the

provisions of law entitling the purchaser to a

deed.

8.

That the petition is complying with the

provisions of I.C. 6-1.1-25-4.6(b) by attaching

required copies and supplementing this petition

with copies of the 4.6 notice and mailings.

9.

Under I.C. § 6-1.1-25-4.6(g), the tax deed

ordered by this Court is an estate in fee simple

absolute, free and clear of all liens and

encumbrances created or suffered before or after

the tax sale, except those liens granted priority

under federal law, and liens of the state or any

political subdivision thereof, for taxes and

special assessments that accrue subsequent to

the tax sale.

10.

Under I.C. § 6-1.1-24-5(e) and I.C. § 6-1.1-24-10,

the following taxes and special assessments on

the said property were by law to be included and

guaranteed by the county treasurer in the sell

price at the tax sale, and are to be forgiven:

delinquent taxes and special assessments on the

property prior to the tax sale; taxes and special

App. 63

assessments due and payable in the year of the

tax sale, regardless of whether they were

delinquent; penalties which were due on the

delinquencies; amounts for the costs incurred by

the county due to the tax sale; any unpaid costs

which were due from a prior tax sale; and all

other reasonable expenses of collection,

including title search expenses, uniform

commercial code expenses, and reasonable

attorney’s fees incurred by the date of the tax

sale.

11.

Under I.C. §6-1.1-24-7(b), the county treasurer

may pay the taxes and special assessments, or

both, on the above described subject real

property that have become due during the period

of redemption from the tax sale surplus held in

the name of the taxpayer, if any.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that the court enter

an order:

1. Finding that Petitioner has included the

documents described in by I.C. 6-1.1-254.6(b); and

2. Directing the County Auditor to issue a tax

deed to the real property described herein

and for such other relief as the Court finds

just and proper in the premises.

I affirm under the penalties of perjury that the

foregoing representations are true.

App. 64

/s/ Vivek V. Gupta

Vivek V. Gupta, (IN# 24029-49)

Attorney for Petitioner

17962 Foxborough Lane

Boca Raton, FL 33496-1321

Tel: 561-487-2742

Fax: 561-487-3287

E-mail: guptaesq@gmail.com

App. 65

Filed: 1/17/2022 3:51 PM

Madison County Circuit Court

Madison County, Indiana

STATE OF INDIANA

)

) SS:

COUNTY OF MADISON )

IN THE MADISON CIRCUIT COURT

CAUSE NO. 48C03-2112-TP-000757

PARCEL NO. 48-07-30-100-003.000-029

TAX SALE CERTIFICATE: 482002411

IN RE: PETITION OF SAVVY IN LLC FOR TAX

DEED

SUPPLEMENT TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR

ORDER DIRECTING AUDITOR TO ISSUE TAX

DEED

Comes now the Petitioner, SAVVY IN LLC, by

counsel, being first duly sworn, states as follows:

1. Pursuant to I.C. 6-1.1-25-4.6, the Petitioner filed a

Verified Petition for Order Directing Auditor to

Issue Tax Deed with the Court upon the expiration

of the redemption period.

2. The Petitioner caused notice to be given to everyone

holding the substantial interest in the property,

such notice stating the date of expiration of the

period of redemption and the date of filing petition

for a tax deed by certified mail as well as regular

mail.

App. 66

3. No objections to the Petition have been filed during

the allotted thirty (30) day period.

4. Copies of the Notice of Filing of Verified Petition for

Order Directing the Auditor to Issue Tax Deed, the

certified mail return receipts and all returned

envelopes are attached to this application. (Sup

Exhibit)

WHEREFORE, Petitioner, SAVVY IN LLC, prays for

an order for Order Directing Auditor to Issue Tax Deed,

and for all other just and proper relief.

/s/ Vivek V. Gupta

Vivek V. Gupta, (IN# 24029-49)

Attorney for Petitioner

17962 Foxborough Lane

Boca Raton, FL 33496-1321

Tel: 561-487-2742

Fax: 561-487-3287

E-mail: guptaesq@gmail.com