Wehling v. Citizens Nat. Bank

Decision Date14 February 1992
Docket NumberNo. 27S02-9202-CV-110,27S02-9202-CV-110
Citation586 N.E.2d 840
PartiesBenjamin WEHLING and Jean Wehling, Appellants, (Plaintiffs Below) v. CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK and Marvin Foland and David Bates, Appellees. (Defendants Below)
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

KRAHULIK, Justice.

Plaintiffs-Appellants, Benjamin and Jean Wehling, seek transfer from the Court of Appeals' affirmance, in a memorandum decision, of the trial court's entry of summary judgment against them in favor of Defendants-Appellees, Citizens National Bank, Marvin Foland, and David Bates (collectively "the Bank") 567 N.E.2d 181. The trial court determined that the Bank had breached no duty to the Wehlings, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment on a different ground, viz., that the statute of limitations had run on the Wehlings' claim. We disagree with the ruling of the trial court and the decision of the Court of Appeals and, therefore, grant transfer.

The facts necessary to a discussion of applicable law follow. On June 11, 1981, the Wehlings purchased a parcel of property in Upland, Indiana. They financed their purchase through the United Bank of Upland, the Bank's predecessor in interest. Prior to closing, the Wehlings paid a fee of $10.70 to the Bank in order to have the Bank record the deed to the property. The Bank did record the deed on June 17, 1981, but allegedly was negligent in failing to place the Wehlings' mailing address in the transfer books. Instead, the Bank listed the address of the subject property in the transfer books.

On May 10, 1982, the Wehlings paid the May installment of the 1981 real estate taxes for the property in question as well as for several of the other properties in Grant County that the Wehlings owned. After this payment, the real estate taxes fell delinquent. A notice of this delinquency was mailed by the Grant County Auditor to the address of the property at issue, as well as to the address of the former owners of the property. The Wehlings did not receive this notice. In July 1984, a notice of tax sale was mailed by the auditor both to the address of the property at issue and to the address of the former owners. Again, the Wehlings did not receive this notice. Ultimately, the property was purchased at a tax sale on August 13, 1984, and a deed for the property was executed by the county auditor on October 28, 1986. There is no contention by the parties that the Wehlings were, in fact, aware of the purchase of the property at the tax sale or the deeding of the property by the county auditor until 1987 when the Wehlings attempted to sell the property.

On October 16, 1987, the Wehlings filed a complaint against the tax sale purchaser in an attempt to quiet title and to set aside the tax deed. The Bank was added in an amended complaint which claimed that it was liable to the plaintiffs for negligently recording the deed and for failing to escrow and pay the real estate taxes. The tax sale purchaser and the Bank defendants filed separate motions for summary judgment which the trial court granted. It is the entry of summary judgment against the Bank, and not against the tax sale purchaser, that is at issue.

The trial court determined that the Bank owed no duty to the Wehlings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of summary judgment without a discussion of whether the Bank owed a duty to the Wehlings because the Wehlings' action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

I. Duty

The trial court based its entry of summary judgment in favor of the Bank on the holding that the Bank had no duty to provide the county auditor with the Wehlings' correct address. Citing Holland v. King (1986), Ind.App., 500 N.E.2d 1229, and Clark v. Jones (1988), Ind.App., 519 N.E.2d 158, the trial court held that the duty to provide the county auditor with correct and proper mailing addresses rested solely on the landowner and not on the Bank. We conclude that these cases are inapplicable to the Wehlings' claim.

Although both cases hold that the property owner is responsible for providing proper information to the auditor, neither is factually analogous to this case. Holland examined whether the sending of tax notices by certified mail to the owner's last known address constituted notice sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements of due process as well as statutory criteria. The Court of Appeals held that notice was sufficient because "the burden of notifying the county taxing authority of the taxpayer's correct address [is] upon the taxpayer." Holland at 1237. This point of law was restated in Clark, a case involving a property owner who was aware that various notices sent by the auditor were misaddressed, but failed to notify the auditor of the mistake.

Here, the Wehlings proffered evidence that the Bank had contracted to perform the filings necessary to perfect the deed in exchange for a fee. The Bank, through its contractual agreement, assumed the performance of what would otherwise be a duty of the property owner, viz. providing the correct address for mailing purposes. An affidavit of an expert familiar with recording procedure in the county was entered into the record of this case. In that affidavit, the expert opined that one of the requirements of properly recording a deed is to provide correct mailing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
133 cases
  • Martin v. Richey, Jr., M.D.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • July 8, 1999
    ...diligence, could have discovered that an injury had been sustained as a result of the tortious act of another." Wheling v. Citizens Nat'l Bank, 586 N.E.2d 840, 843 (Ind. 1992). At the same time, this Court has interpreted section 34-18-7-1(b) as an "occurrence" rather than a "discovery" sta......
  • Young v. Harmon, Cause No. 1:01-CV-440 (N.D. Ind. 5/13/2003)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • May 13, 2003
    ...diligence, could have discovered that an injury had been sustained as a result of the tortious act of another. Wehling v. Citizens Nat'l Bank, 586 N.E.2d 840, 843 (Ind. 1992). As Young seems to realize, at least he does not argue otherwise, all his claims began to run on the day his employm......
  • Trentadue v. Buckler Lawn Sprinkler
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • July 25, 2007
    ...Ga.App. 318, 287 S.E.2d 252 (1981). Hawaii: Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hosp., 50 Haw. 150, 433 P.2d 220 (1967). Indiana: Wehling v. Citizens Nat'l Bank, 586 N.E.2d 840 (Ind., 1992). Iowa: Roycroft v. Hammons, 203 F Supp 2d 1053 (S.D.Iowa, 2002). Louisiana: Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., 593 So.2d 3......
  • Martin v. Richey, 53A04-9603-CV-104
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • January 13, 1997
    ...a cause of action for negligence shall be commenced within two years from the date the cause of action accrued. In Wehling v. Citizens Nat. Bank, 586 N.E.2d 840 (Ind.1992), our supreme court interpreted that statute and the cause of action of a tort claim accrues and the statute of limitati......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT