Lenard v. Adams, 3-1280A374
Citation | 425 N.E.2d 211 |
Decision Date | 31 August 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 3-1280A374,3-1280A374 |
Parties | Rosemary LENARD, Appellant, v. Richard ADAMS and H. B. Ike Moyer, d/b/a A & M Properties, and Charles R. Miller, Auditor of Elkhart County and Woody L. Caton, Treasurer of Elkhart County, Indiana, Appellees. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Richard H. Sproull, Elkhart, for appellant.
Robert W. Miller, Elkhart, for appellee, A & M Properties.
Rosemary Lenard's real property was sold at a tax sale to A & M Properties. 1 She brought this action to have the tax deed declared void. 2 A & M Properties filed a counterclaim to quiet title and a motion for summary judgment. 3 The trial court granted A & M's motion for summary judgment; Rosemary Lenard appeals. The only issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in granting A & M's motion for summary judgment. 4
We affirm.
Lenard challenges the trial court's granting of A & M's motion for summary judgment by alleging that material issues of fact existed. In Poxon v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (1980), Ind.App., 407 N.E.2d 1181, this Court stated:
If Lenard could have presented evidence establishing at least one subsection of IC 6-1.1-25-16, she would have presented a challenge to the summary judgment granted by the trial court. Lenard only pursued subsection seven which provides that the tax deed may be defeated by proving:
"(7) if the original owner is claiming adversely to the deed, that the notice required by IC 1971, 6-1.1-24-4 and section 6 of this chapter were not given in the manner prescribed in those sections."
Lenard further limited her attack by challenging only the "notice" requirement found in IC 6-1.1-24-4, which provides:
Lenard alleges specifically that there is no proof in the record that notice was sent to her "last known address," or that the county auditor certified "that notice was given in the manner prescribed in this section."
The parties to this appeal agree that the tax deed was in fact issued to A & M. IC 6-1.1-25-4(d) provides in part that:
Prima facie evidence is sufficient to establish a given fact and remains sufficient if uncontradicted. Johnson v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 648, 283 N.E.2d 532; Rene's Restaurant Corp. v. Fro-Du-Co-Corp. (1965), 137 Ind.App. 559, 210 N.E.2d 385.
Additionally, A & M attached a certified copy of the tax sale certificate to its motion for summary judgment. IC 6-1.1-24-11(a) provides that:
Presumptive evidence stands until rebutted. The presumption disappears upon evidence to the contrary. Gandy v. Orr (1942), 112 Ind.App. 605, 44 N.E.2d 181.
Therefore, the trial court had clear evidence before it of the regularity and validity of all proceedings entailing the tax sale. This necessarily includes the proceedings with respect to "notice," unless properly placed in issue. Lenard alleged generally in her complaint that the tax sale and notice statutes were not properly followed: 5 Additionally, she filed two affidavits in opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed by A & M. The affidavits merely argue the significance of certain evidence allege noncompliance with statutes, and state generally that there are facts in issue. 6 These affidavits fail for two reasons.
First, the affidavits fail to meet the requirements of Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 56. That rule requires affidavits: (1) to be based upon personal knowledge; (2) to state facts which would be admissible evidence; and (3) to affirmatively show the affiant is competent to testify to those facts. TR. 56(E); Whitaker v. St. Joseph's Hospital (1981), Ind.App., 415 N.E.2d 737, 743; Renn v. Davidson's Southport Lumber Co., Inc. (1973), 157 Ind.App. 446, 451, 300 N.E.2d 682, 685; W. Harvey, 3 Indiana Practice 556 (1970). The affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment by Lenard fail all three requirements.
Secondly, the contents of Lenard's affidavits were totally inadequate. The function of the affidavit is to place facts in issue. The party opposing the motion for summary judgment must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. TR. 56(E); Henderlong Lumber Co., Inc. v. Zinn (1980), Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 310. As previously stated by Judge Hoffman, and of particular pertinence in the present case:
Burcham v. Singer (1972), 151 Ind.App. 1, 5, 277 N.E.2d 814, 816.
TR. 56(E) provides, in pertinent part:
As stated by Judge Garrard in Letson v. Lowmaster (1976), 168 Ind.App. 159, 163, 341 N.E.2d 785, 788:
(footnote omitted, original emphasis)
The tax deed, as "prima facie" evidence of the regularity and validity of all proceedings and the tax sale certificate creating a "presumption" of the same, entitled A & M to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Two other issues, which Lenard attempted to raise upon appeal, are waived. Her appellate brief postured the first of these alleged issues as follows:
"Does the statute on presumption of evidence relating to a tax certificate preclude that these facts being raised at the trial of the cause when all the steps necessary to properly conduct a tax sale are not shown to have been taken properly?"
This alleged issue was presented to the trial court in the brief in opposition to A & M's motion for summary judgment:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Graham v. State, 2-984A274
...... See Lenard v. Adams (1981), Ind.App., 425 N.E.2d 211, 218; Indiana Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A). ......
-
Santini v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 4-485
...... This is clearly an improper briefing practice on appeal. See, Lenard v. Adams (1981), Ind.App., 425 N.E.2d 211, 218. See also Lucas v. Frazee (1984), Ind.App., 471 ......
-
First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Calhoun
......The presumption disappears upon evidence to the contrary.” Lenard v. Adams, 425 N.E.2d 211, 214 (Ind.Ct.App.1981). However, WM Mortgage moved for summary judgment, ......
-
Morris v. State, 1-781A212
...... A failure to cite pertinent authority constitutes waiver of the alleged issue of error. Lenard v. Adams, (1981) Ind.App., 425 N.E.2d 211. Thus, we will not consider Morris's res judicata ......