Crowe v. Savvy IN, LLC (2023)
Citation: No. 23S-TP-00090, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Oct. 11, 2023) · Court: Supreme Court of Indiana · Decided: October 11, 2023
A recent indiana tax-deed decision applying jones-v-flowers: a tax-sale purchaser’s certified + first-class mailed notices satisfied due process and IC 6-1.1-25 because none were returned undeliverable, so no “additional reasonable steps” were required. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ grant of extra equitable redemption time.
Facts
In the 2020 Madison County tax sale, Savvy IN, LLC purchased parcels owned by James A. and Phyllis Lynn Crowe, who had not paid their 2018 property taxes. On February 10, 2021, Savvy IN notified the Crowes by certified mail, return receipt requested, that the parcels had been purchased and that they had until October 5, 2021 to redeem. After the redemption deadline passed, Savvy IN petitioned for tax deeds and mailed notice of the verified petition by certified mail and a copy by first-class mail. None of the mailings was returned as undeliverable. The trial court issued the deeds; the Crowes moved for relief under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6), claiming they never actually received the notices. The trial court denied relief; the Court of Appeals reversed and would have granted additional time to redeem.
Holding
The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court, holding that Savvy IN’s certified-plus-first-class mailed notices satisfied both the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and Indiana law. Because none of the mailings was returned undeliverable, Savvy IN was not required to take “additional reasonable steps” under Jones v. Flowers, and the Crowes were not entitled to relief from the tax-deed judgment.
Reasoning
- Mennonite / Jones framework. The Court applied mennonite-v-adams (record interest holders get actual mailed notice) and jones-v-flowers (returned mail triggers additional steps).
- No return = no extra duty. Where mailed notice is not returned undeliverable, the mailings indicate actual delivery, and the Constitution does not require the sender to speculate about whether notice was received or to take further action.
- Owner’s burden of contrary evidence. The Crowes offered no evidence the mailings failed; absent such evidence, the mailings met the federal constitutional threshold, defeating the Rule 60(B)(6) attack.
Practical impact
- For Indiana tax-sale purchasers, Crowe confirms the safe-harbor logic of Jones: properly addressed certified + first-class mail that is not returned satisfies due process without further investigation.
- For divested owners, a bare claim of non-receipt — without evidence the mail was returned or undeliverable — will not reopen redemption or undo the deed.
- The decision reversed an equitable extension of redemption, narrowing courts’ room to grant extra redemption time on non-receipt grounds.
Good-law status
Still good law. Decided October 11, 2023. The U.S. Supreme Court was asked to
review (No. 23-1117) and denied certiorari (June 17, 2024), leaving the Indiana
decision standing. Not overruled as of last_verified 2026-06-02.
Why it matters
It is Indiana’s current statement on when returned-vs-delivered mail ends the due-process inquiry in a tax-deed proceeding — the precise issue that decides most Indiana redemption and set-aside fights.
Related authorities
- jones-v-flowers — returned certified mail requires additional steps.
- mennonite-v-adams — record interest holders entitled to mailed notice.
- mullane-v-central-hanover — notice “reasonably calculated” standard.
- tyler-v-hennepin-county — surplus-equity takings (Indiana already returns overbid).
Applies in →
indiana (state law). Persuasive elsewhere on the returned-mail rule.
Legal information, not legal advice. This page summarizes a court decision for educational purposes and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Verify against the primary opinion and consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before acting. Last verified 2026-06-02.