M&M Investment Group, LLC v. Ahlemeyer Farms, Inc. (2013)
Citation: 994 N.E.2d 1108 (Ind. 2013); No. 03S04-1211-CC-645 · Court: Supreme Court of Indiana · Decided: September 26, 2013
A leading indiana mortgagee-notice decision: conditioning a mortgagee’s pre-sale mailed tax-sale notice on the mortgagee filing a statutory annual request under IC 6-1.1-24-3(b) does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals, which had held the request scheme unconstitutional.
Facts
Before a parcel can be sold at an Indiana tax sale, the county auditor must mail notice of the pending sale to any mortgagee of record — but only if the mortgagee has first affirmatively requested such notice by submitting an annual form to the auditor under IC 6-1.1-24-3(b). Monroe Bank, mortgagee of an Ahlemeyer Farms parcel in Bartholomew County, did not submit the request form. It therefore received no mailed pre-sale notice and learned of the tax-delinquency only after the property was sold. The bank challenged the annual-request requirement as a due-process violation.
Holding
The Indiana Supreme Court held that IC 6-1.1-24-3(b)‘s annual-request requirement does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. A mortgagee that fails to file the request bears the risk of not receiving mailed tax-sale notice. The Court reversed the 2012 Court of Appeals decision (and the trial court) that had struck the scheme as unconstitutional and required mailed notice to a non-requesting mortgagee — that Court of Appeals holding is no longer good law.
Reasoning
- Mennonite distinguished. mennonite-v-adams requires actual mailed notice to a mortgagee of record, but Indiana’s scheme provides exactly that mechanism; the modest precondition that the mortgagee file an annual request to activate it does not offend due process.
- Reasonable, low-cost condition. Requiring a sophisticated lienholder to make a simple annual filing to guarantee notice is a constitutionally permissible allocation of a minimal burden, not an unconstitutional barrier.
- Twenty years of precedent upheld. The Court declined to disturb long-settled Indiana practice conditioning mortgagee notice on the request.
Practical impact
- For mortgage lenders holding Indiana collateral, the case is a hard rule: file the annual IC 6-1.1-24-3(b) request or risk losing the security to a tax sale with no mailed warning.
- For tax-sale purchasers, it confirms that a deed is not defective merely because a non-requesting mortgagee went unnotified.
- It marks the boundary of Mennonite in Indiana: record status alone does not guarantee mailed notice where the statute requires an activating request.
Good-law status
Still good law. Decided September 26, 2013; not overruled as of last_verified
2026-06-02. (It is itself the decision that reversed the contrary 2012 Court of
Appeals opinion.)
Why it matters
It defines the due-process limit on mortgagee tax-sale notice in Indiana — the rule that puts the burden on lienholders to opt into notice, a recurring trap for junior and out-of-state mortgagees.
Related authorities
- mennonite-v-adams — mortgagees of record entitled to actual mailed notice.
- mullane-v-central-hanover — notice “reasonably calculated” standard.
- crowe-v-savvy-in — Indiana owner-notice / returned-mail rule.
Applies in →
indiana (state law). Persuasive elsewhere on request-conditioned lienholder notice.
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.