Sungold Holdings, Inc., Midwest Auto Body, and Robert H. Gentry, III v. Donald Blair ( 2013 )

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
Apr 23 2013, 9:27 am
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: APPELLEE PRO SE:
RONALD K. SMITH DONALD BLAIR
Muncie, Indiana Eaton, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
SUNGOLD HOLDINGS. INC. )
MIDWEST AUTO BODY, and )
ROBERT H. GENTRY, III, )
)
Appellants-Defendants, )
)
vs. ) No. 18A02-1207-MI-612
)
DONALD BLAIR, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
)
APPEAL FROM THE DELAWARE CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Thomas A. Cannon, Jr., Judge
Cause Nos. 18C05-1107-MI-93, 18C05-1107-MI-94 & 18C05-1107-MI-95
April 23, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
VAIDIK, Judge
Case Summary
Sungold Holdings, Inc., Midwest Auto Body, and Robert H. Gentry, III
(collectively, “the Objectors”), appeal the trial court’s decision to issue tax deeds to
Donald Blair1 for three properties sold at a tax sale. The objectors contend that the trial
court erred in finding that they failed to raise a proper objection to the tax sale. Finding
that the trial court did not err, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On October 28, 2010, a tax sale was held, and three properties were sold by the
Treasurer of Delaware County to the Delaware County Commissioners. On March 18,
2011, the Delaware County Commissioners transferred the tax-sale certificates to Blair.
On July 25, 2011, Blair filed a petition directing the Auditor of Delaware County to issue
tax deeds for the real estate to him, and the Objectors objected, arguing they did not
receive proper notice of the tax sale and Blair was an ineligible purchaser because he
owed delinquent taxes as of the date of purchase on three parcels of land.
A hearing was held, and the Objectors did not raise the issue of notice, admitting
that they were no longer raising that issue as part of their objection. A witness from the
Delaware County Auditor’s Office also testified that according to the records received
from the county treasurer, Blair did not owe delinquent taxes on the three parcels of land
in question and was therefore eligible to participate in the tax sale. Tr. p. 34-38. The trial
court entered findings of facts and conclusions of law, holding that even though it was no
1
We note that Blair’s pro se Appellee’s Brief violates the Indiana Appellate Rules, as its
Statement of Facts is numbered and not in narrative form. Ind. Appellate Rule 46(B); 46(A)(6)(c).
2
longer an issue, proper notice had been given as part of the tax sale and Blair was eligible
to purchase the real estate at the tax sale.
The Objectors filed a motion to correct errors, which was denied. They now
appeal.
Discussion and Decision
The Objectors contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion to correct
errors. They make two arguments on appeal, which we restate as whether the trial court
erred in finding (1) they failed to raise a proper objection to the tax sale pursuant to
Indiana Code section 6-1.1-24-4.6 and (2) the sole remedy for forfeiting the tax sale was
action by the county treasurer. Since we find that the Objectors did not raise a proper
objection and Blair is an eligible purchaser of the properties, we need not address the
argument concerning forfeiting the tax sale.
Because the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, we apply a
two-tiered standard of review. Mueller v. Karns, 873 N.E.2d 652, 657 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007), reh’g denied. We determine first whether the evidence supports the findings and
second whether the findings support the judgment. Id. We will not reverse the trial
court’s findings or the judgment unless clearly erroneous. Ind. Trial Rule 52(A);
Mueller, 873 N.E.2d at 657. A finding is clearly erroneous when the record lacks any
evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support it. Id. The judgment is
clearly erroneous when it is unsupported by the findings and the conclusions. Id. In
conducting this review, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility and
consider the evidence in a light that is most favorable to the judgment. Id. While we
3
defer to the trial court substantially on its findings of facts, we owe no deference to the
trial court’s conclusions of law, and we review them de novo. Id.In their objections, the Objectors contended that proper notice was not given
concerning the tax sale and the issuance of the tax deed and Blair was ineligible to
purchase the property. Appellant’s App. p. 24-26. The trial court, however, found that
the issue of notice was not raised in the hearing on the objection and the Objectors had
admitted that the question of notice was no longer part of their objection. Id. at 48. We
agree, and therefore, the only surviving issue in the objection is whether Blair was
eligible to purchase the land.
Indiana Code section 6-1.1-24-5.3 governs who is barred from purchasing land at
a tax sale, and provides in relevant part:
(a) This section applies to the following:
* * * * *
(5) A person who, in the county in which a sale is held under this
chapter, owes:
(A) delinquent taxes;
(B) special assessments;
(C) penalties;
(D) interest; or
(E) costs directly attributable to a prior tax sale;
on a tract or an item of real property listed under section 1 of this
chapter.
(Emphasis added). The relevant portions of Indiana Code section 6-1.1-24-1 state:
(a) On or after January 1 of each calendar year in which a tax sale will be
held in a county and not later than fifty-one (51) days after the first tax
payment due date in that calendar year, the county treasurer (or county
executive, in the case of property described in subdivision (2)) shall certify
to the county auditor a list of real property on which any of the following
exist:
4
(1) In the case of real property other than real property described in
subdivision (2), any property taxes or special assessments certified
to the county auditor for collection by the county treasurer from the
prior year’s spring installment or before are delinquent as
determined under IC 6-1.1-37-10 and the delinquent property tax or
special assessments due exceed twenty-five dollars ($25).
* * * * *
(b) The county auditor shall maintain a list of all real property eligible for
sale. Except as provided in section 1.2 or another provision of this chapter,
the taxpayer’s property shall remain on the list. The list must:
(1) describe the real property by parcel number and common
address, if any;
(2) for a tract or item of real property with a single owner, indicate
the name of the owner; and
(3) for a tract or item with multiple owners, indicate the name of at
least one (1) of the owners.
(Emphasis added).
The trial court found that Blair was an eligible purchaser because the Objectors
provided no evidence that any parcels of his real estate were contained on the relevant
certified list under Indiana Code section 6-1.1-24-1. Specifically, the witness from the
Delaware County Auditor’s office testified that according to their records received from
the county treasurer, Blair did not owe delinquent taxes on the three parcels of land in
question. Since there is no evidence that disqualifies Blair under the relevant Indiana
Code sections, and the Objectors no longer raise the issue of notice, we find that the trial
court did not err in holding that the Objectors have failed to raise a viable objection to the
sale of the properties. As a result, Blair was eligible to purchase the properties, and we
need not address the issue of remedies for forfeiting a tax sale.
5
We therefore affirm the trial court.
Affirmed.
KIRSCH, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
6