MAHMALJI v. LOVELL (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Mark Mahmalji purchased three properties at a tax sale but failed to perfect the orders issuing the tax deeds by filing them with the county auditor within 150 days as required by statute. Mahmalji now appeals the trial court's orders denying his requests for additional time to file the documents. The only issue he raises on appeal is whether the trial court erred when it denied his motions. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] At a tax sale on May 11, 2023, Mahmalji purchased three pieces of real estate at the following locations: (1) 4801 Kentucky Street, Gary, Indiana 46409; (2) 2636 Madison Street, Gary, Indiana 46407; and (3) 1949 Maryland Street, Gary, Indiana, 46407 (collectively, “the Properties”).¹ On November 6, 2023, Mahmalji filed his verified petitions for tax deeds for the Properties.² Following a January 11, 2024, hearing, the trial court issued orders on that same date granting Mahmalji's petitions. Approximately two months later, Mahmalji's then-attorney sent him copies of the orders, which Mahmalji read but “didn't understand.” Tr. at 9.

[3] The January 11 orders contained the following paragraph:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file this Order to Issue Tax Deed with the Lake County Auditor Tax Sale Department within 150 days of the hearing date at which the tax deed petition was granted, together with the necessary Sales Disclosure Form, payment of tax deed recording fees and payment of subsequent or outstanding real property taxes. Petitioner's failure to perform any of the foregoing within 150 days from the subject hearing date shall make this Order to Issue Tax Deed null and void. No Motions for Extension of this deadline will be entertained or granted by the Court.

App. at 5 (emphases in original). During the first week of June 2024, Mahmalji's then-attorney “evidently” sent Mahmalji an e-mail that addressed the 150-day deadline, but Mahmalji did not look at it because he is “not really a computer friendly person.” Tr. at 7.

[4] Mahmalji failed to file with the Lake County Auditor the Orders to Issue Tax Deeds for the Properties within 150 days of the date of the hearing issuing those orders. Mahmalji learned that he had missed the deadline when he tried to pay taxes on the Properties in mid-June 2024. Mahmalji obtained new legal counsel in July and soon thereafter filed Motions to Renew January 11, 2024, Tax Sale Orders or Restart Redemption Periods for the Properties. Following an August 15 hearing at which Mahmalji testified, the trial court issued its orders denying his motions. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Mahmalji contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motions to renew orders or restart redemption periods. The trial court's orders did not contain any findings of fact or conclusions thereon. Under such circumstances, “we review the order as a general judgment and, without reweighing evidence or considering witness credibility, we will affirm if sustainable on any theory consistent with the evidence.” Lamasco Redev., LLC v. Henry Cnty., 80 N.E.3d 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied.

[6] In addition, we note that none of the appellees have filed briefs. We will not develop an argument for the appellees but instead will reverse the trial court's judgment if the appellant's brief presents a case of prima facie error. Salyer v. Wash. Regular Baptist Church Cemetery, 141 N.E.3d 384, 386 (Ind. 2020). “Prima facie error in this context means ‘at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.’ ” Id. (citation omitted).

[7] “When an owner of real estate fails to pay property taxes, the property may be subject to sale by county authorities in settlement of the delinquent taxes.” Lamasco Redev., 80 N.E.3d at 260 (citing Marion Cnty. Auditor v. Sawmill Creek, LLC, 964 N.E.2d 213, 217 (Ind. 2012)); see also Ind. Code ch. 6-1.1-24. “The tax sale process is purely a statutory creation and requires material compliance with each step of the governing statutes,” including Indiana Code Chapter 6-1.1-24 (sale), and Chapter 6-1.1-25 (redemption and tax deeds). Reeder Assocs. II v. Chicago Belle, Ltd., 778 N.E.2d 828, 831 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. Failure to comply with any of the steps “renders void subsequent tax deeds which deprive owners of their property.” Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. of Grant and Blackford Cntys. v. M Jewell, LLC, 992 N.E.2d 751, 754 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), trans. denied.

[8] Here, Mahmalji admittedly failed to comply with Indiana Code Section 6-1.1-25-4(n), which provides:

A county auditor shall not issue or record a tax deed unless the following requirements are met not later than one hundred fifty (150) days after the date of the hearing at which a court grants the tax sale buyer's petition for the tax deed:

(1) Copies of the court order to issue the tax deed and the sales disclosure form are filed with the county auditor.

(2) The recording fees for the tax deed are paid.

(3) All subsequent or outstanding real property taxes on the property are paid.

Mahmalji did not file copies of the court orders to issue the tax deeds and the sales disclosure forms with the county auditor within 150 days of the date of the hearing granting his petitions for the tax deeds, i.e., January 11, 2024. Moreover, it is clear that Mahmalji had sufficient ³ notice of that requirement, as he admittedly received a copy of the January 11, 2024, order, the last paragraph of which informed him in emphasized language of the 150-day deadline and that “No Motions for Extension of this deadline will be entertained or granted by the Court.” App. at 5.

[9] Mahmalji does not take issue with the fact that he failed to comply with the statutory requirements; rather, he asserts that the trial court erred in its choice of remedy for that failure. Specifically, Mahmalji contends that the trial court erred when it required the county auditor to refund Mahmalji's full tax sale purchase prices for the Properties and place the Properties back on the delinquent list for tax sale, rather than granting his motions to essentially extend the 150-day deadline.⁴

[10] “The plain language of Indiana Code [S]ection 6-1.1-25-11 sets forth the remedies available to tax sale purchasers if a trial court invalidates a sale or a tax deed.” Lamasco Redev., 80 N.E.3d at 262. That statute provides, in relevant part, that a county auditor “shall refund” the purchase money to the purchaser if, after an order directing the auditor to issue a tax deed to the property, “it is found by the court that entered the order for the tax deed that the sale was invalid.” I.C. § 6-1.1-25-11. Here, the trial court ordered the issuance of the tax deeds on January 11, 2024, but subsequently found that the sales were invalid because Mahmalji had failed to comply with the requirements of Indiana Code Section 6-1.1-25-4(n). See, e.g., M Jewell, 992 N.E.2d at 754 (holding failure to comply with any step of the statutes governing tax sales “renders void subsequent tax deeds”). Therefore, the trial court did not err when it ordered the auditor to refund Mahmalji's purchase money for the properties.⁵

Conclusion

[11] Mahmalji has not shown that the trial court committed prima facie error when it denied his motions to extend the redemption periods and, instead, ordered the county auditor to refund his full tax sale purchase prices for the Properties and place the Properties back on the delinquent list for tax sale.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although Mahmalji filed three separate appeals—one for each of the three properties—we resolve all three appeals in this one opinion, as the only difference between the appeals is the location of each of the Properties.

2.   Neither the November 6 petitions nor the Chronological Case Summaries were included in the Appellant's Appendices as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 50(A)(2). However, we were able to access those documents via the Odyssey case management system.

3.   Although Mahmalji testified that his lawyer did not send him a copy of the orders until two months after they were issued, that still left Mahmalji with three months in which to comply with the statutory requirement. Furthermore, although Mahmalji testified that he did not understand the orders, there was no evidence presented showing that he had any disability or other condition that would prevent him from understanding the clear language of the orders.

4.   By requesting that the court “renew” the January 11, 2024, orders or “restart” the redemption periods, Mahmalji was requesting, in essence, that the court start the 150-day deadline over again. App. at 6.

5.   In support of his claim that the trial court erred in ordering the refund of the purchase prices, Mahmalji cites Pinch-N-Post, LLC v. McIntosh, 132 N.E.3d 14 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), which involved a failure to provide adequate notice under Indiana Code Section 6-1.1-25-4.5. The Court in Pinch-N-Post noted that Indiana Code Section 6-1.1-25-4.6(j) specifically provides that “the court shall not order the return of the purchase price” to a purchaser who fails to comply with the notice requirements of Indiana Code Section 6-1.1-25-4.5. However, the latter statute is not the statute at issue in this case; therefore, Indiana Code Section 6-1.1-25-4.6 (j)—and Pinch-N-Post—are inapplicable.

Bailey, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.