LLC 25970 v. Marion County Auditor, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] The Marion County Auditor petitioned for a tax deed as to a parcel of real property that was sold at a tax sale in 2023. Loan Funder LLC Series 25970 (“Loan Funder”), which held a mortgage on the property, objected, claiming that statutorily required tax-sale notices hadn't been sent to it. After a hearing, the trial court denied Loan Funder's objection and granted the Auditor's petition. Loan Funder now appeals. The Auditor hasn't filed an appellee's brief, so Loan Funder need only make a prima facie showing of error. See Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (Ind. 2006). It has failed to do so.

[2] Loan Funder contends the Auditor didn't send it either pre-sale notice that a tax sale was imminent or post-sale notice explaining the right of redemption. There is no evidence in the record that the Auditor sent Loan Funder pre-sale notice, but Loan Funder hasn't shown that it was entitled to such notice. Indiana Code section 6-1.1-24-3(c), which Loan Funder doesn't mention, provides that the county auditor must send pre-sale notice to any mortgagee “who annually requests, by certified mail, a copy of the notice.” Loan Funder hasn't claimed, let alone proven, that it made such a request, so it hasn't established that the Auditor was required to send it pre-sale notice. See M & M Inv. Grp., LLC v. Ahlemeyer Farms, Inc., 994 N.E.2d 1108 (Ind. 2013) (holding that sending pre-sale notice to mortgagees only upon request doesn't violate due process).

[3] The Auditor was required to send Loan Funder post-sale notice, see Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.5, and at the hearing the Auditor presented evidence that it did so. The Auditor's Exhibit 1 shows that four “Loan Funder” entities had a “substantial interest of public record” in the property: Loan Funder LLC Series 25790 (the appellant here), Loan Funder LLC Series 26019, Loan Funder LLC Series 35317, and Loan Funder LLC Series 36430. Ex. pp. 25-26. The same exhibit shows two addresses for each of those entities: 205 E. Main St., Crawfordsville, Indiana, and 645 Madison Ave., 19th Floor, New York, New York. Id. at 26. In turn, the Auditor's Exhibit 2 is a spreadsheet titled “Notices and Mailings List.” Id. at 37-50. A tax-sale specialist from the Auditor's office testified that the spreadsheet lists all tax-sale notices that were sent in relation to the property at issue. The spreadsheet shows that a total of 16 post-sale notices (called “4.5 Notices,” based on the statutory citation) were sent to the two addresses for the “Loan Funder” entities—eight to each address, four via certified mail and four via first-class mail. It is true that the spreadsheet doesn't identify the name of the recipient to which each notice was sent. But it is reasonable to infer, as the trial court did, that two notices were sent to each of the four “Loan Funder” entities at each address (one via certified mail, one via first-class mail). Therefore, the trial court didn't err by finding that the Auditor sent post-sale notice to Loan Funder or by granting the Auditor's petition for a tax deed.¹

[4] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In addition to finding that the Auditor sent post-sale notice to Loan Funder, the trial court noted that Loan Funder was separately informed of the tax-sale proceedings in August 2024, in relation to a mortgage-foreclosure action it had filed; that at the time, the window for redeeming the property was still open; and that Loan Funder attempted to redeem the property but failed to follow the proper procedure. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 49.

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Scheele, J., concur.