USA Foreclosure Wiki

Indiana Land Trust Co. v. XL Investment Properties, LLC (2020)

9 min read

Indiana Land Trust Co. v. XL Investment Properties, LLC (2020)

Citation: 155 N.E.3d 1177 · Court: Indiana Supreme Court · Docket: 20S-MI-00062 · Decided: October 27, 2020 · Author: David, J. (unanimous)

The Indiana Supreme Court’s leading tax-sale notice case: a county auditor who sends simultaneous certified and first-class mail notice to the address of record satisfies federal and state due-process notice requirements for an impending tax sale. When the first-class mailing is not returned undeliverable, the auditor owes no additional duty to search its own internal records for a better address. The Court vacated the 2019 Court of Appeals result and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to set aside the tax deed.

Facts

The property. A 30-acre vacant parcel in LaPorte County, Indiana (originally owned by Peter Dellaportas and later held by a land trust, Indiana Land Trust Company, f/k/a Lake County Trust Company, TR #4340) accumulated unpaid property taxes from 2009 through 2015, generating a liability exceeding $230,000.

The tax sale. At the October 2015 tax sale the property received no bid; at a February 2016 “Live Certificate Sale” XL Investment Properties, LLC purchased a tax sale certificate for $155,000. A tax deed issued to XL Investment in 2016 after the statutory redemption period expired without redemption.

The notice chain. The LaPorte County Auditor, through its tax-sale contractor SRI Inc., mailed the required statutory notice to the trust’s address of record. Two separate mailings were sent simultaneously: one by certified mail (returned as undeliverable) and one by first-class mail (never returned to sender). Publication notice also ran in a local newspaper. The auditor did not search its own internal records to determine whether a better or more current address existed for the trust.

The quiet-title action and motion to set aside. XL Investment filed a quiet-title action. Indiana Land Trust moved to set aside the tax deed, arguing that the auditor’s failure to search its own records after the certified mail was returned made notice constitutionally inadequate under Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950), and Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006). The LaPorte Superior Court denied the motion. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed (July 30, 2019, Docket 18A-MI-2150, 130 N.E.3d 630), holding that the auditor had a due-process duty to consult its own records when certified mail was returned.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and vacated the Court of Appeals decision.

Holding

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to set aside the tax deed:

The Constitution does not require more than the actions taken in this case. The power to require more rests with the General Assembly.

The LaPorte County Auditor’s simultaneous certified-plus-first-class mailed notice to the address of record was adequate and reasonably calculated to inform the trust of the impending tax sale under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause (Mullane). Because the first-class mailing was not returned as undeliverable, the auditor was not constitutionally required to search its own internal records for an alternate address. The Jones v. Flowers duty to take additional reasonable steps is triggered only when notice is actually returned as undeliverable — not merely when one of two simultaneously-sent mailings is returned while the other is not.

Reasoning

1. The two-mailing statutory scheme satisfies due process. Indiana Code § 6-1.1-24-4(b) requires the county auditor to send notice of a tax sale by both certified mail and first-class mail to the address in the tax records. This dual-notice approach is designed so that even if one mailing fails, the other reaches the owner. The Court held this statutory scheme, when faithfully executed, satisfies the Mullane standard of notice “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action.”

2. Unreturned first-class mail cuts off further inquiry. The Court reasoned that once the auditor sends simultaneous certified and first-class mail, the non-return of the first-class piece is evidence that at least one method of notice likely succeeded. Unlike the Jones v. Flowers scenario — where a single certified-mail attempt was returned and the state sent nothing further — here the auditor used two methods and one was not returned. This distinction is constitutionally material: when the state has reason to believe notice was delivered (no-return of first-class), it need not speculate further.

3. The “search-your-own-records” duty does not apply on these facts. Jones v. Flowers (2006) required the state to take additional steps after a certified letter is returned unclaimed, such as mailing a first-class letter or posting the property. The Court declined to extend that holding into an affirmative requirement to search the government’s own databases when nothing indicates that the mailed notice failed to reach the owner. Justice David wrote that imposing such a duty would require auditors to continually cross-reference every internal government record system before each tax sale notice — an obligation the Due Process Clause does not mandate and one the Legislature has not chosen to impose.

4. The 2019 Court of Appeals result is reversed. The COA (Baker, J.) had held that the auditor’s failure to search its own records, even after the certified-mail was returned, rendered notice inadequate. The Supreme Court vacated that holding. The 2019 COA opinion (Indiana Land Trust Co. v. XL Investment Properties, LLC, 130 N.E.3d 630 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)) is no longer good law on the “search-your-own-records” issue.

Practical impact

For tax-sale investors (purchasers): A tax deed issued after a dual-notice mailing (certified + first-class) to the address of record is constitutionally adequate as long as the first-class mailing was not returned. A motion to set aside the deed on due-process grounds faces a high bar: the trust must demonstrate that both mailings actually failed AND that the auditor had access to a better address through its own records. Evidence that the first-class piece was received or simply not returned is sufficient to defeat the constitutional challenge.

For county auditors: Compliance with IC § 6-1.1-24-4(b)‘s dual-mailing requirement — simultaneous certified and first-class to the address of record — satisfies Fourteenth Amendment due process. Auditors are not constitutionally required to proactively audit internal records for better addresses before issuing notice. The duty to take additional steps arises only if both mailings are returned or there is affirmative evidence notice did not reach the party.

For former property owners: Challenging a tax deed on notice grounds requires showing that the certified-mail notice was returned AND that the first-class notice also failed or was not sent. Where first-class mail was sent and not returned, the burden of demonstrating a due-process violation is very difficult to carry. This case significantly limits the practical availability of the notice-defect challenge in Indiana.

Relationship to Crowe v. Savvy IN (2023): The Indiana Supreme Court reaffirmed and applied the XL Investment holding in Crowe v. Savvy IN, LLC, No. 23S-TP-00090 (Ind. Oct. 11, 2023): where a tax-sale purchaser (not the auditor) sends post-sale notice of petition for tax deed via certified and first-class mail, and the first-class mailing is not returned, no further notice steps are required. XL Investment and Crowe together establish a consistent rule for both county-auditor pre-sale notices and purchaser post-sale notices.

Good-law status

Still good law. The unanimous 2020 Indiana Supreme Court opinion has not been overruled or narrowed. It was expressly followed in Crowe v. Savvy IN, LLC (Ind. Oct. 11, 2023). No subsequent Indiana Supreme Court decision has revisited the “search-your-own-records” question or the standard for dual-mailing adequacy.

The 2019 Court of Appeals opinion (Docket 18A-MI-2150, 130 N.E.3d 630) — which had held that the auditor must search internal records after certified mail is returned — was vacated by the Supreme Court grant of transfer and is not good law.

Sources retrieved

  1. Indiana Supreme Court, Docket No. 20S-MI-00062, Indiana Land Trust Co. v. XL Investment Properties, LLC, 155 N.E.3d 1177 (Ind. Oct. 27, 2020) — Justia page (403 on direct fetch; case confirmed through multiple independent corroborating sources): https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/2020/20s-mi-62.html
  2. The Indiana Lawyer — news article reporting the Indiana Supreme Court ruling (“LaPorte Co. auditor provided adequate notice of tax sale, Supreme Court rules”): https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/laporte-co-auditor-provided-adequate-notice-of-tax-sale-supreme-court-rules
  3. Indiana Courts caseclips — 2019 Court of Appeals opinion (SUPERSEDED; historical reference only): https://caseclips.courts.in.gov/2019/08/05/ind-land-trust-v-xl-investment/
  4. Indiana Courts caseclips — Crowe v. Savvy IN, LLC (2023) — applies and confirms XL Investment standard: https://caseclips.courts.in.gov/2023/10/16/crowe-v-savvy-in-llc-no-23s-tp-00090-__-n-e-3d-__-ind-oct-11-2023/
  5. Indiana official event listing confirming oral argument date and parties (20S-MI-00062): https://events.in.gov/event/supreme-ind-land-trust-co-v-xl-inv-properties-llc-and-laporte-cty-auditor-20s-mi-00062
  6. Williams Law Group analysis — secondary corroboration of facts and holding: https://www.williamsgroup.law/blog/2023/01/what-process-is-due-in-tax-sale-cases-indiana-land-trust-company-v-xl-investment-properties/

Note on trust number. The task brief describes the party as “Indiana Land Trust #3082.” The actual case caption identifies the trust as Lake County Trust Company TR #4340, later renamed Indiana Land Trust Company TR #4340. No case involving a Trust No. 3082 in this factual posture was identified. The page was created for TR #4340 / 20S-MI-00062 / 155 N.E.3d 1177 — the case that matches all other identifying markers (Indiana Supreme Court, 2020, LaPorte County, XL Investment Properties, due-process/notice, IC 6-1.1-24). The slug indiana-land-trust-v-xl-investment-properties used throughout the repo correctly identifies this case.

Applies in →

indiana — state-law holding under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-24-4(b) and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause; reflects how Indiana courts apply Mullane and Jones v. Flowers to dual-mailing auditor notice.

  • crowe-v-savvy-in — 2023 Indiana Supreme Court; extends and applies XL Investment to purchaser post-sale notice
  • mullane-v-central-hanover — SCOTUS 1950; the “reasonably calculated” due-process notice standard
  • jones-v-flowers — SCOTUS 2006; duty of additional steps when notice is returned; XL Investment limits this duty when first-class mail is not returned
  • mennonite-v-adams — SCOTUS 1983; mortgagees of record entitled to actual notice
  • m-and-m-investment-group-v-ahlemeyer-farms — Indiana Supreme Court 2013; IC 6-1.1-24-3(b) annual-request requirement for mortgagees does not violate due process

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 2026-06-10.

Graph View

Backlinks