Crowe v. Savvy IN, LLC (In re 2020 Madison Cnty. Tax Sale)

200 N.E.3d 929

IN RE the 2020 MADISON COUNTY TAX SALE

James A. Crowe and Phyllis Lynn Crowe, Appellants,

v.Savvy IN, LLC, Appellee.

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

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed November 30, 2022

Attorney for Appellant: Ralph E. Sipes, Anderson, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Lewis Maudlin, Bedford, Indiana, 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] 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 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] 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 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 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, 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 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.

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 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,...