Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: JONATHAN L. MAYES NICOLE R. KELSEY Office of Corporation Counsel Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE (Intervenor) HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK: MELISSA J. DEGROFF HAMISH S. COHEN E. TIMOTHY DELANEY Barnes & Thornburg LLP Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

Dec 24 2008, 9:20 am

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MARION COUNTY AUDITOR and MARION COUNTY TREASURER, Appellants-Petitioners, vs. REVIVIAL TEMPLE APOSTOLIC CHURCH, Appellee-Respondent, AND THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, Appellee-Intervenor. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CLERK

No. 49A02-0803-CV-230

APPEAL FROM THE MARION CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Theodore M. Sosin, Judge The Honorable Richard D. Gilroy, Commissioner Cause No. 49C01-05009-MI-036054

December 24, 2008 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION VAIDIK, Judge

Case Summary This case arises out of a churchs failure to apply for a property tax exemption for several years and the Marion County Treasurers and the Marion County Auditors ("Marion County") repeated attempts to place the property on its tax sale list to collect the resulting delinquent taxes and fees. After Marion County sold a parcel of land owned by Revival Temple Apostolic Church ("Revival Temple") in a tax sale in 2005, Revival Temple repurchased the property with funds borrowed from Huntington National Bank ("Huntington Bank"). After the trial court granted a motion to set aside the tax sale in 2006, Marion County refused to refund the full repurchase price. Huntington Bank filed a contempt action against the county, alleging that Marion County willfully violated orders issued by the trial court in 2003 and 2004 that deemed the property ineligible for tax sale and willfully violated the trial courts 2006 order setting aside the tax sale by refusing to refund the repurchase price. The trial court found Marion County in contempt of all three orders, ordered it to refund the entire repurchase price, prohibited the county from placing the property on the tax sale list during future years, and awarded Huntington Bank attorneys fees and costs. On appeal, Marion County argues the trial court abused its discretion in finding it in contempt of the 2003 and 2004 orders because the orders did not unambiguously prohibit it from placing the property on the tax sale list in the future. Marion County also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding it in contempt of the 2006 order because the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order the refund of property taxes already paid. Finally, Marion County argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to prohibit it from placing Revival Temples 2

property on the Marion County tax sale list in all future years. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in finding Marion County in contempt of the 2003, 2004, and 2006 orders. Further, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to prohibit Marion County from placing Revival Temples property on the Marion County tax sale list in future years. Finally, because we reverse each of the trial courts contempt findings, we reverse the award of costs and fees to Huntington Bank. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. Facts and Procedural History Revival Temple acquired a parcel of land in Marion County, Indiana, in 1998.1 When Revival Temple acquired the property, its previous owner, Phillips Temple CME, had an exemption from property taxes on file with Marion County. Appellants App. p. 53. Although it, too, apparently would have qualified for a property tax exemption, see Ind. Code

Download Marion County Auditor and Treasurer v. Revival Temple, et al.pdf

Indiana Law